Any new year rung in by getting kicked out of Ben's because they're being shut down is a good one. I'm still recovering from the festivities. Unfortunately, my cell phone, which has survived a great deal of bruises in the past few months (since I went for a swim with my last one) was dropped on the ground and broken. Curses. Oh, well. I'll try to describe the adventures later...

My hometown newspaper's lead story was about a guy who was selling his acres of apple trees. The story about the earthquake in Iran was under the fold. Unforgiveable, in my opinion. At least the Post led with it. There are some days when I'm glad I'm not connected to every story instantly. The sort of day when 5,000 turned out to be an eight-fold underestimate. Don't get me wrong: I don't want to bury my head in the sand. Being overjoyed at a time like this just seems a little unfair.

Holiday break, you know. Best Holiday ever. Details later, when I get a free moment. Given the current ratio of things-I-haven't-had-fun-with to things-I-haven't-eaten-yet I'm still hungry for more. All around.

So I hear about this poll about the issue of gay marriage. I go and vote. Of course, they're "verifying" by an e-mail address, which doesn't make the poll scientific. Nicely, over 64% of people answered that gay marriage was fine or that civil unions (my preference, as I don't think the state should be involved with religion) were acceptable. Equal rights under the law triumphs again. The downside? I get an e-mail this morning saying the following:

Dear Reed, I want to take this opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas, and to offer my sincerest thanks for signing the American Family Association's poll on marriage.

This issue in America today is so near and dear to my heart. As a former homosexual, I believed I was born "gay." After 11 years in the "gay" lifestyle my life changed in 1992 when a Christian woman lovingly confronted me and my homosexuality with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I couldn't help but see the truth in God's Word that my homosexuality was sin before a holy God.

Lives world wide are being changed daily by the power of Jesus Christ. I am one of thousands of men and women who have walked away from homosexuality, and who have become the men and women that God has created us to be.

Um, news flash, kid. If people weren't "born" gay then they must have "chosen" to become gay. So I'm sure those kids in high school who got beat up every day, or the ones who carry on sham marriages, are just making a "choice" right? I mean, they must want to be discriminated against, right? Because at the end of the day, it makes total sense that they'd choose to be one of the most marginalized groups in existence, one that was consistently persecuted against for all time. Right? Sheesh. I don't doubt that a few people over the history of time have been able to deprogram their sexual orientation and redirect it in a different direction, but we're talking chemicals here, interacting with other chemicals. I mean, if people were given the choice to be who they wanted to be, I'm sure many would choose to be a blue eyed American white man making serious coin and living in a nice house. Oh, wait: that's me! Just because I lucked out in the global lottery of good parents (help from nature and nuture!) doesn't mean that I should have it easier than everyone else. Or that I should go around crushing those less fortunate than me.

Just as I was starting to get down about these weirdos, (the AFA, that is) I read that Nader isn't running as a Green Party candidate. What happened? Well, I'm sure enough people told Ralph what they thought about him running. You send the Dean people over there and you get an instant /. effect where everyone is fighting for good and for ABB in 2004. It just goes to show, along with the AFA poll, that when you arouse the citizens of the blogosphere, you get a lot of educated techies who may occasionally veer towards libertarianism, but who know that Bush is the worse president in modern history. The Greens and the AFA are learning that lesson today. And that knowledge warmed my holiday heart.

A few reviews to throw up, but later. Between my ongoing laundry and the too many to count pages of the victorian/indian soap opera I haven't cracked in three days I've got plenty to work on. Plus, an idea has been bubbling in the back of my mind so I had to work on that to get a few words down.

After going to Beantown with Deborah and performing an elaborate switch with her to enable me to bring Brad back to the land of little representation, I'm slightly tired. (Of course, there's no place like Boston to cure a case of white skin angst! Those people up there are so pale it hurts to look at them.) I ended up driving over 3/4 of the entire journey, with aome slight festivities between the two days. Now I'm back, working hard as ever, and devoting some time to last-minute shopping.

This conveniently, brings me to a larger point I'd like to tackle this evening: namely, my inherent laziness.

You see, most people are either fairly mellow or a little high-strung. Most of my friends and co-workers tend to fall into the latter category. Maybe it's a DC thing, but the days of meeting friends who liked to be mellow, chill out all the time, abandoning long term ambitions, seem to be over. Instead, almost everyone here is either studying hard, working hard or partying hard.

You see, for those of us, including YT, who burn our candles twice as bright, there are further distinctions. I'd like to explicate those, to show that a lazy person can work hard sometimes, and vice versa. If one looks at my current trajectory it's quite easy to see my point. When I first snagged a job it paid poorly, but offered the opportunity for overtime pay. Consequently, I worked a great deal. Later I scored a better paying job which enabled me to get off of work at 3:00pm. Despite being a hellish job during the hours I had to work, it was over quite quickly so I ended up making more money for less work. Now, at an even better job, I make much more money while working far less. You could say I'm working smarter, not harder. Or you could be honest and recognize that I've managed to achieve a significant goal of any lazy person: working less for more money.

Of course, this is not to say that I'm not busy, merely that I'm working (in the conventional sense) at a pace that's slower. To draw this distinction more perfectly, let me merely suggest that another person, in my position, would probably get tons more work done. They'd be paid the same amount, yet work a great deal harder for little gain. I think that's foolish.

Put yourself on a beach. Are you

• A: the guy who is working on his tan
• B: the girl who is reading a book
• C: the people playing volleyball

More importantly, which would you rather be? I admit, I'd probably be multitasking by tanning and working on a good book. But if someone were to ask me to play volleyball, I would. Perhaps I should use a better example.

In every office, there are several workaholics. Some end up working late each day, sacrificing family and fun for the greater corporate good. We'll call this type of person the "hard" worker. Then there are the people who show up a little later, leave on time, but eschew chit-chat and socializing during the day. They prefer to hit a happy hour later, but while at work they're just professional. We'll call these people the "efficient" workers. Finally, there are the guys who show up early, but hit the coffee circuit, ask about the big game last night, and leave a few minutes early to hit a happy hour. These are the "social" workers.

A myriad of combinations exist between these three, but it's a good way to break down people. We're leaving out people too mellow to get a job in a high-stress environment, which is why even the "social" workers have to be smart and talented to get in. One can also substitute "work" for "school" and see the same effect, only with studying instead of working. As a lazy person, I definitely fit the "efficient" worker. Most of my day is spent attempting to either make myself obsolete (through simplification of existing routines) or to accomplish difficult tasks using less effort. If someone drops a five-hour project on my lap, and I realize that I can have it done in five minutes if I blow three hours creating a new system to do it with, I'll go ahread and waste three hours. The true lazy person always looks long term, to see if there are any cost-savings that can be built into the beginning.

I remember while at school, I used to spend the first week reading all the books for my English classes in advance. That way the stories and information flowed better, rather than breaking it down into chapters. Yet when paper writing time came, I frequently procrastinated until the final evening. Why the distinction? Well, as a lazy person, I realized early on that large grades hinged on big papers. Hence, the papers had to be completed. Doing them a week early didn't make them more completed than doing them two days before they were due. In fact, waiting until the last minute meant that rather than be distracted by other desires, I'd have to burrow down and get busy excavating the facts. Books, on the other hand, were for no points at all. Given the choice between seeing a movie or hanging with friends and reading a book, I'd always choose the former. Hence, by reading the books early the first week (before the real social events began to start) I would enable myself to hit more social stuff later. Yeah, by the end of the semester I'd forgotten some of the stuff, but that info was probably boring to begin with.

The true lazy person at works looks constantly for similar methods. If something can be done in five minutes, why waste ten? If a long term project won't be completed for three months, why start in advance? Haste, at least in my experience, does not make waste. Instead, it inspires a better work ethos.

The problem, of course, is that methods of study or work are not meant for the social sphere. Being "busy" with social events doesn't accomplish a named goal. I'm always annoyed by my friends who seem to have dinner plans each evening with a different group of people, as if they were attempting some sort of race circuit with the rather nebulous end goal of reviewing the entire district from a culinary perspective. When the bell rings to let out class, or to end the work day, many "hard" workers stay to keep working. I don't empathize with them. I'm halfway out the door already. But who makes it to the next level, then? I'm equally disdainful of my friends who are super-social but too busy to be mellow. You know: the person reading the business book at the beach. Some people believe that "networking" is a good in and of itself. I'm not too sure about that. Actually, I am sure. It's not good. I'd rather have one person I trusted than five who knew me superficially.

Odd, isn't it? That someone with such a poor good/superficial friend ratio would expres those sentiments. Well, again, without going into my bizarre friendship theory (which I can tackle during an entire post later this week) let me just say that I'm not drawn towards people who are always busy. I prefer people who can prioritize certain friends over business and social obligations. Being a social person is good, but only if it's backed up with a real desire to (as in my previous post) push the envelope in terms of going the distance and actually talking to people rather than simply making banal comments about the weather.

And so, to continue my slothful attitude, I like to hang around people in a social sense who don't employ numerous defenses to prevent me from getting to know them. If you're going to play hard to know, then you should remain unknown. Yes, I'm turned off by the person who instantly divulges a level of detail only a good friend should know, but at the same time, if I disagree with you on something, I'd much rather know about it (ya hearing me you GOP people?) so that I can find some common ground. Being sneaky about it or concealing your true motives is frustrating.

Which comes, nicely, full circle to my own hypocrisy: I'd much rather listen to someone tell me about their opinion than talk myself. Yet I frequently overwhelm people with my own rants. Why the disconnect? Perhaps because most of it is simply snow; witty banter designed to fill the space of a conversation. I want, more desperately than anything, to have people push back. Consider it a test. The super-talkitive people simply enage in further snow, while the truly interesting thing, deploy a pointed barb, and retreat to see my reaction. That level of verbal sophistication is attractive. Perhaps it's why I like people who argue with me. Okay, time to hit the book, laundry and other website. I've come up with at least two future topics, which is good. Plus, I only scraped the surface on my dislike for workaholics, of which I don't consider myself one. Perhaps next post.

Two days. Over a thousand miles logged. Very tired now. Will explain later.

I'm looking mighty white this morning. Perhaps it's just the reflection of sun on snow here (the landscape is all frozen) but regardless, I need to get my melanin count up or I'm going to start resorting to drastic steps.

Stupid pale skin. At least my face has some color.

Let's lay out a few facts: I'm ultimately transparent. Whether it's allowing my id to speak most of the time, or my unfortunate habit (currently concealed by two friends) of being quite candid while unconscious, or simply not feeling guilty about most of my actions, I tend to wear my heart, hopes and hatreds on my sleeve.

Combine the above traits with a rather inferior memory and a good eye for detail and you get an odd combination: high highs, low lows, and little recollection or appreciation of either.

The problem with manic-depressive (or as they say "bi-polar") disorders is that one is plunged into a deep sense of gloom and doom on a frequent basis. It's a never ending roller coaster where unfortunately each time one ascends a peak, the valley before you appears all too soon. Fortunately, I'm not cursed with this.

Instead, each time I feel on top of the world, I mentally note to myself that, as good as things seem to be, things could always be better. I'm often happy but rarely content, for this reason. I can't remember the last evening that has gone "perfectly" in my mind. I've had several knock-down drag-out tons-of-fun evenings over the past two weeks, but nothing that couldn't have been improved in a slight way. Of course, for every two or three ups, there's a down. Conveniently, any time I feel particularly melodramatic (which oddly enough tends to occur more on evenings that are close to perfect than those which peter out completely) I am instantly reminded that I live in the most powerful city in the most powerful country on the face of the earth in recorded history. I hit myself and think that I'm neither hot nor cold, malnourished or sleep deprived. In short, life is pretty damn close to perfect already.

It's really that search for perfection that keeps things interesting. Take a hypothetical evening: say, Friday or Saturday night. A perfect evening would combine plenty of spontaneity with an unending string of places to go and at least one incredible story to relate afterwards. Ideally, at least three different groups of friends would be involved, but each would still remain conveniently compartmentalized so that nothing gets too socially sticky. Of course, ending any evening before winning time would be a less-than-perfect way to go out.

Being sponaneous and superego-less, (who needs a conscience? or guilt?) the only thing that can really prevent an evening from standing out is the performance or lack thereof from my friends. If you're that guy who has to get up early in the morning, you're already dead to me. If you're that woman who is feeling tired and wants to go home with your boyfriend instead of living it up, get out of here. If you're super psyched to go to dinner but I didn't invite you intentionally, don't make an ass out of you and me. If you hate rice and fish, don't hit a sushi bar, you know? Yeah, most people don't measure up. It's not that I mind when people run out of energy; far from it. I just want to see people slow down before they call it quits. If you're playing the game, you don't sub out until you're dragging it or injured. Yet at many social situations people take a pass long before they grow snippy, collapse into a heap, or worse. I prefer stamina to social graces. With a long enough timeline, everyone will eventually disappoint me. (I think, at this point, only Loaf has managed to never call it quits before either I was ready or before her body shut down involuntarily. She's totally duracell, even if she is crazy. Brad has a couple of friends that are the exact opposite, who seem to bow out early every single occasion. Of course, Brad himself...)

Last Monday evening, some people I was with hit the limit. Good for them. Perhaps lines were crossed, but the next time I'm sure they'll get right up to the brink and then back off properly. That's the angle. I remember in high school my cross-country coach said that you should run every race so that at the finish, as you cross the line, you have no energy left. Running too hard early meant you'd run out of energy too soon, so the angle was to trick your body into surrendering only a second after you'd crossed the tape. Later, my cardiologist (who was checking my heart out because I kept passing out at the end of races) told me that this was the dumbest idea he'd ever heard. When it comes to the social sphere, however, I tend to agree with the XC coach: the best evening is the one where you arrive home, take out your contacts and hang up your shirt, and immediately plunge into REM. I've lost more minutes of my life through my idiotic athletic adventures than I'd care to admit right now. I'm not getting that time back to me, years later. But the angle is still the same: don't burn yourself out early, and when you pass the finish line have nothing left.

I remember vividly a race at the rival high school back in the day. I was annoyed that there weren't any runners around me to pace off of. Instead, I was by myself, which made me feel much more tired than normal. As I ran into the football stadium near the finish, someone in the crowd yelled "He's right behind you!" I never looked back. I began kicking way too early, and kept it up all the way to the finish line. Crossing the mark and looking back, I realized that there was no one near me. The next thing I knew I was staring up at the blue sky. Fifteen minutes were lost. I needed some water, but all I could think about was that guy I thought was right behind me. He's never going to catch me. No matter how much time I lose.

The next week should be fairly slow. Holidays, at least in my mind, seem to involve less melodrama and more laissez faire. In such an environment, in the past, I would lessen the amount of my blog posts to a bare minimum, consistent with the lack of incoming news I was receiving. This time, however, I'm going to strive to be a bit different.

Instead of the "not much new has happened" school of thought, I feel this downtime should provide me with a perfect opportunity to clear up some points briefly touched on in the past. The common thread, at least in my mind, will be hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy? Yeah. Why, you may ask? Put simply, I've always claimed to be a hypocrite. I simply don't follow the logical implications of many of my positions. This enables me to hold views that are often diametrically opposed, or at least appear to be.

In the spirit, then, of exposing these twists to the wind, I hope to lay out a series of positions and follow them, step by step, to their natural conclusions. I'm not renouncing hypocrisy in general, but I am interested to see where the path leads. And so it begins.

Plenty of stories from this evening and last. Too many to tell tonight. I'll try to explicate all the various angles, nicknames and madcap mayhem tomorrow.

The one anecdote that sums it all up in the meantime is this: I roll into Ben's after having partied for most of the evening. I know I can only be there for a few minutes before I have to leave to keep the party going. I sit down and start doing some political scut work. Two seconds later one of the Ben's guys rolls by my chair, looks at me and says "Hey, you want some chili cheese fries, right?" I reply in the affirmative. He brings them out. Perfect as usual.

Skip the line. Skip the process. I'm getting service without even asking. Nice. No effort required other than the word "yes".

More on this evening tomorrow. Time to hit some bebop action. Life is perfect, stars be damned.

These holiday affairs are starting to come too close together for comfort. The real trick, of course, is to successfully compartmentalize all of them so that you aren't seeing the same friends at each event. So far, so good. Another one this evening should include more people from a as-yet-unopened box, although some were connected with last night's ahem festivities.

I managed to almost get in an argument (it was more of a heated discussion) last evening with a guy who was vehemently against race-based affirmative action. Don't get me wrong: I think class-based affirmative action is better than race-based, but I don't think we can say that race-based affirmative action is bad yet. But think about it: we're two white guys at a tony bar in DC discussing affirmative action. Kind of sickens you, doesn't it? When sir-speaksalot took a break from his vitriol, the other guy there pointed out that in DC, it was all about nepotism anyway so affirmative action was a moot point. I agreed.

Stupid rich kids.

Into the valley of death, right? Skip that. I'm too perturbed to continue. From an inappropriate insinuation to a friend selling me out, I'm not a happy camper. Behind blue eyes, no one can appreciate my situation. I am so angry right now I have to remember Bad Day at Black Rock.

You know who you are. I will right things.

The rain has changed to snow here in the district in the past hour.

There are few things more captivating than falling snow. People stand in the street, smile for no reason and seem amazed each time. It never gets old. Snow on the ground, dirty, ugly snow, gets old quickly, but falling flakes never cease to light up people around town.

And speaking of the town, the District of Columbia blanketed in snow is a sight everyone should have to see. From the mall to U St., the Morg to Georgetown, Haynes Point to the Anacostia, DC looks its best at night, with glittering crystals on the air and ground. All the momunments looks older and wiser, with the little ones (like the DC momunment to those district residents who died in war without any representation in Congress) acquiring subtle gravity in a way they don't have during the humid summer months. The capitol is more imposing, Union Station brighter and TJ's visage clearer as the snow falls. Even the ugly old Watergate is delightful in the snow. Pennsylvania Avenue looks as if it were ripped from a Frank Capra film. You stop hating the unlected guy in the White House and instead envying the Secret Service guards who are warm in their little pillboxes, emerging only occasionally to wave away any stray crazies who harangue the tourists.

I remember the blizzards of last year, running around through the closed streets, hoping it'd never let up. Every single person I met was having the time of their life. I hope this year will be the same.

So some people have cat fridays and others have science fridays but I think, in the spirit of 'werkz days gone by, that I'm going to introduce fast food wednesdays.

As regular readers know, I've a vast supply of hugely inane and lengthy stories revolving around me purchasing fast food. (Yes, they tend to be longer and more idiotic than even my regular narratives, which says a great deal about how boring they are.) But hey, I've got the talking stick...er...keyboard so that's all that matters.

Today, around lunch time, I drop my coat off at the tailor's (an unexpected windfall combined with the shoddiness of my seamstress abilities led me to this path; my last sewing job lasted a mere day before it came apart!) and roll over to popeye's to get some spicy chicken. Even from the outside, it appeared to have all the earmarks of a run on the bank. Once inside, I discovered an angry mob of dc denizens had developed, all annoyed that enough chicken had not been properly prepared by the lunch hour.

It turned out that every other person in line had come in with a "Christmas Order" which involved them snagging about 40 pieces of chicken each. This slowed down the lines to a crawl and depleted the supply of chicken to almost nil every few minutes, which meant an angry exchange between the cashier people, the mananger and the fry guys in back. On the plus side, the customers were almost all united in our annoyance that our chicken was taking so long. But it's DC, it's pouring rain, and where else are you going to go? Popeye's has a virtual monopoly on the fried chicken market in DC, which is good because they earned it through a superior product but bad because in DC, cornering the market on fried chicken means everyone and their cousin is going to be hitting your store up at lunchtime.

After about 30 minutes, I got my food. Yeah. Crazy, eh? But it was damn tasty in the end, so all's well that ends well. I'll try to keep these sorts of stories to a once-a-week maximum.

I haven't let up since I arrived home. The door lock has been fixed, various areas cleaned in a foundation manner (more for tomorrow) and kipple attacked on all fronts. Man, I'm tired. I think I'll catch a bebop episode and then collapse for my two hours of sleep. Oh, well.

I misled Deborah.

She made me a hat.

I wasted several hours.

24 was surprisingly good this week...almost all the 'what the hell is going on' plot lines were saved neatly.

Deborah drove me home.

Now I get to clean the house. Yeah, right. I've already blown 1/2 an hour disassembling a lock. I wonder what I'll "work" on next?

The bebop love is safe and sound. It had simply been borrowed (which I, truthfully, had suggested) and last evening's festivities left me arriving home late enough to not only engage in some atrocious spelling, but also to be flummoxed as to said dvd's location. It's now back where it should be.

In political news, Thune just announced he's not running for his old seat meaning that both Herseth (who looks 12) is setup for victory and Daschle may be safe as well. Nice. Go Dems!

So I roll downstairs to catch some bebop love but my dvd is missing. Missing! I was all set to stew about it until later this morning but fortunate for me, a partciularly good "family guy" episode was on adult swim.

Adult Swim rocks. If you've never seen it you've missed out.

Later I fell, dropped my cell phone down a flight of stairs and banged up my hand. But overall, a good evening.

Setting aside my internal debates between empiricism and free will, there are a few key moments in anyone's life that determine future directions. Looking back, I can point to a few days/hours/minutes that helped shape my life more than the regular tedium.

Likewise, in any month, there are a few days/hours/minutes that stand out about all others. They impact certain evening in a distinct way. Tonight was one of those nights. I can remember the exact moment at which things went from really bad to quite intersting in a single instant. All's well that ends well.

Um, yeah. Turns out that Halliburton is also serving dirty food to our soldiers in Iraq. Way to go, guys!

Friday night took me out of commission for the weekend. That and my body just wasn't feeling good. Yeah. I should be back to all cylinders tomorrow.

There's a girl twirling two spinning balls of fire outside my house right now. Damn.

I almost forgot to mention, it being Friday, that President Bush is unelectable.

The White House Press Corps are going off on Scott today, again. It's amazing. It's the best show on television. Yesterday after more Canada-bashing from the podium, McClellan stormed off.

Democracy sure isn't pretty, but occasionally it can be quite entertaining. Every American should watch the WH Press Briefings.

Enough said.

Now I know why: it turns out that any ANSWER-related march gets no coverage, regardless of where it is. Yay!

Obviously I'm working hard. Yeah, really hard. That's why, per a conversation last night with Fincher, I was able to uncover these three gems from a certain math show from back in the day. I got to thinking, that when I was a kid, there were tons of quality shows on that emphasized cool stuff like math. When I went to go get my delicious sandwich from Quizno's, I passed by these guys who sell educational rap cds dealing with multiplication out of a van near Metro Center. It sounds pretty standard, but you'd think that more people would do stuff like that.

Interestingly enough, as I listened to the clips I started to think about a whole bunch of (un)educational great shows that I used to watch that while younger that are no more. As a kid, there were tons of shows that were funny and smart and somewhat offbeat. Today, there just aren't as many. Where are the shows liks Almost Live, MST3K, Voyagers, Talk Soup and others? Where's the original programming these days? Why do all the concepts have to be reality shows?

Okay, without further ado, here are the clips, each in RealMedia format:

1. Mathman: Yeah, the cross between a Michigan wolverine and pac-man. Lots of fun.
2. The Nine Song: addictive if you've never heard it.
3. Lt. Dirk Niblick: basically a math-oriented Rocky & Bullwinkle type cartoon short. Plenty of bad puns throughout. Lots of fun.

Okay, back to my real job. No more Square One for now.

Surprisingly (?) I'm busy at work...designing some new ideas for the website and various other items.

It's looking like a Quiznos sort of day. Just in time (hopefully) for the WH press briefing at 12:45.

At today's White House Press Briefing, several people pointed out the idiotic problem with restricting the list to 63 countries, namely, that some countries, like Canada, which contributed troops to Afghanistan and money to rebuilding Iraq, aren't on the list:

Q Scott, Mr. Wolfowitz has issued this directive saying that for contracts in Iraq, certain countries will be excluded, only coalition partners will be allowed access to the U.S. money for contracts. And he based that on a national security interest. Why is it in the national security interest of the United States to restrict countries like France and Canada from contracts?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you're referring to a specific wording in a memo. You might want to ask the Department of Defense about some of the specific wording in the memo. But I would point out that this was something that has been previously announced. If you'll go back, there are some media coverage of this on November 20th. There have been a couple of trade fairs, both in London and in Virginia, discussing this issue with Pentagon officials, talking about how these reconstruction funds would be used. But in that memo, it also talks about the importance of encouraging expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts, and it talks about encouraging people that are involved with the United States and others to continue to cooperate.

But I think that the bigger picture here is that all of us have a shared goal, and that is helping the Iraqi people build a better and brighter future. All of us have the same goal of making the world a safer and better place. And there are a number of ways for countries to participate in the efforts going on in Iraq right now, to help us realize that, help the Iraqi people realize a brighter future.

...

Q Scott, one of the reasons for the decision is to ostensibly protect U.S. security. Could you explain what security threat Canada poses, and why would countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Colombia be allowed to bid on contracts?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look at the entire context of the memo. I mean, specific language that you are referencing, I was asked earlier about. This memo was put out by the Pentagon; you should talk to them about this specific language.

But all this we believe is fully consistent with our WTO obligations. We have looked at this. And again, we're talking about a significant contribution being made by U.S. taxpayers to the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. And I think it's only appropriate that those countries that have been involved with the United States from the beginning and the Iraqi people and those who are contributing forces to the efforts in Iraq would be the ones that would be eligible for the prime contracts funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars. But those countries are fully welcome to go to firms in other countries and involve them in subcontracts.

Q The incoming Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin says he simply cannot understand the decision, given that Canada has already contributed millions of dollars to the rebuilding effort.

MR. McCLELLAN: And we appreciate the contributions that they have made and we will be glad to discuss this matter with them. Again, some of this is based on some of the media reporting, and we welcome the opportunity to talk to countries about the reason for this decision, and about, if they want to participate in other ways, that circumstances can change, too.

...

Q Scott, can I clarify one thing? You're saying it was the people who are with us. You've got Albania, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Honduras on here.

MR. McCLELLAN: Countries that have been with us and have participated -- I don't have a list of how all these countries are helping or participating in these efforts. But you might want to direct those to the Pentagon or to the CPA about the ways that those countries are --

Q Why not Canada, though?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, as I pointed out, there have been a number of countries that have been with us from the beginning and there have been countries that have been contributing forces. There are countries that have been helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous Iraq for the Iraqi people to make the world a safer and better place. And I think the American taxpayers appreciate this decision and understand this decision, as well.

...

Q In the case of Canada, Canada contributed troops to Afghanistan, lost troops in Afghanistan in an accident by U.S. troops, which politically made it very difficult for them to contribute to Iraq. And they're being punished for not being able to provide --

MR. McCLELLAN: In the war on terrorism, there are a lot of countries participating in those efforts, and we appreciate that. There is a very large coalition of countries across the world that are fighting the war on terrorism and making sacrifices. There were -- there was a decision made by coalition forces on Iraq and there are a number of countries that have been helping from the beginning. There are a number of countries that have been sacrificing on the ground in defense of freedom and in an effort to build a better and safer world. And we're talking just about the U.S. taxpayer funding here, which is a significant amount of money from the U.S. taxpayers.

...

Q Paul Martin, who becomes the new Canadian Prime Minister tomorrow, said that he cannot fathom this decision because Canadians are in Afghanistan dying alongside Americans, and because Canada has pledged $300 million to the reconstruction effort in Iraq. Are you not concerned that this is getting things off to a bad start with the new Canadian Prime Minister?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all -- first of all, let me back up. We look forward to working with Mr. Martin as he becomes the new Prime Minister in Canada. Second of all, we appreciate the contributions that Canada has been making in the war on terrorism. And we appreciate the commitments that they have made through the international donors conference in Madrid. And we will look forward to visiting with Canadian officials about concerns that they have and talk to them about these decisions and talk to them about additional ways that they may be able to participate. And, as I said, in regards to all countries, if there are additional countries that want to participate in our efforts, then the circumstances can change. But again, there are some very appropriate and reasonable reasons why this decision was made. And this is relating specifically to U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Q One thing a lot of us are having trouble understanding is how, for example, a Canadian company, were it allowed to bid on one of these contracts, would pose a security risk to U.S. interests. Could you address that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're referencing a specific comment within a memo, which I referred to the broader memo which talked about what we are trying to do in terms of expanding international cooperation and also encouraging those coalition countries that are participating to continue participating in the efforts in Iraq.

Q -- that specific --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's in regards to a memo put out by the Pentagon. You might want to ask them that specific question. I think that might be more appropriately addressed to them.

Q I don't quite understand the international thing. If I remember correctly, the administration has always said that it wasn't fighting alone in Iraq, it was a coalition of 32 nations. Yet there are 63 nations, you said, on this list. So it sounds like there are 31 interlopers who were not participating in Iraq who are eligible for -- (laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: The coalition has continued to grow over time. And this list you're referencing includes coalition partners and it includes countries that are contributing forces in Iraq. That's what that list includes that you're referencing.

Q So everybody on this list has contributed --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have a list of all the different ways that some 63 different countries are helping in the efforts, but you might want to direct those questions elsewhere.

Q Scott, do you know what the criteria is, what the definition is --

MR. McCLELLAN: You might want to talk to those who are responsible, the Pentagon and the Coalition Provisional Authority, about some of those issues.

Q But the broader point here --

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of the criteria here, I mean what's spelled out, that's the memo that was for these prime contracts of the wartime supplemental reconstruction funds. That's spelled out in the memo. And that memo was made publicly available on the website.

Q But the broader point is on trying to encourage international cooperation. And it is clear that it would be --

MR. McCLELLAN: We all share the same goals here. That's one point I'm trying to make to you all in this room.

Q That's clear with regard to, let's say, Russia, Germany and France. But, on the other hand, Canada is actually contributing in Afghanistan. They're actually doing something with the coalition there, and it seems like they're being punished for participating in one country, but not participating in the other.

MR. McCLELLAN: I would hope that they wouldn't look at it that way. I would hope that they would look at it the way that I described it. And that's why I said we welcome the opportunity to talk with these countries about any concerns they may have. And we will explain to them what I've been trying to explain to you all in this room here.

Q How does this policy help the people of Iraq? You said that should be the shared goal. How does excluding countries like Canada from these prime contracts actually help the people of Iraq, if there are businesses that can provide a suitable service?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are a number of firms from countries that maybe aren't on this list that are already participating in some of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. And companies from countries that may receive those prime contracts can certainly reach out to companies in other countries, as well, for the subcontracts.

Q Can you just explain for us why over a quarter of a billion dollars and leading the NATO forces in Afghanistan is not considered participation for these --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've already addressed this, about how we appreciate the efforts of the large coalition of more than 90 nations that have been participating in the broader war on terrorism. We appreciate all those contributions.

Crazy Les then asks a question...but overall, another annoying White House press conference. If I was the Canadian Amabassador, I'd be ringing the President right now to complain.

And in case someone takes the wrong Grand Idea from my former post, let me just say this: I'm not a neo-con, and I don't believe in New American Imperialism. What I do believe is that America should lead and others follow. And part of leadership means saying the right thing. Telling Taiwan that we don't support them attempting to "unilaterally move towards democracy" is the biggest bunch of junk I've ever seen. Bush, telling people not to "be unilateral"? A reporter at the WH yesterday asked, "Well, if they can't move unilaterally towards democracy, how would the WH suggest they move?" McClellan didn't answer him.

Let's just hypothesize that some province in North Korea, perhaps one near the border of South Korea, rebelled and setup a new border with the North Koreans. Would we tell them they shouldn't become a democracy? Would South Korea? Aren't we supposed to be encouraging democracy? What if an African nation did the same thing? Did we act this way towards Poland or the Eastern Bloc countries? How about Estonia and the baltic states when they disbanded from the USSR? Doesn't anyone else see this disconnect? Argh!

The reason, of course, is that Bush is scared of China. Plain and simple. He's scared they'll retaliate and we'll get blamed. So instead of conducting proper diplomacy, he tells the Taiwanese (who mostly want to remain part of China anyway! doh!) they shouldn't be allowed to choose their own path. Anti-Wilsonian Knee-Jerk Reflex at its worst. Yes, I know about the one China policy and the 3 memos and Nixon, but I'm not encouraging Bush (as he did in the past) to go off the reservation and insult the Chinese or spark an incident. I'm just saying he shouldn't insult the American People. And that means telling China that the "One China" is free to do whatever it wants to. That means not rebuking Taiwan.

Look, I'm sure many of my friends will rail against me for this, but if you examine my past statements, you'll find that I have no problem using America's pre-eminence in the world to topple dictators. I think we owe it to people (much as the neocons believe) to allow them to choose their own destiny. That's why before we invaded Iraq, I said that toppling Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people was a good thing. Sure, this administration lied to the American people, and said that Hussein posed a threat (though not an imminent threat, eh?) to our security, none of which was true. But the new neocon spin in hindsight is the reason I originally said we should go in. After North Korea, of course, because they were/still are a threat to security and and we have a moral duty to the North Korean people.

America needs to lead by example. That means we don't bully our friends into invading countries. It means telling the truth to the world. But it also means standing up for little d democratic ideals. And that means, believe it or not, standing up to China.

Read this. I watched McClellan in the on-camera briefing yesterday and I wanted to strangle him through the tv set. Issues about Iraq were complicated. Issues about North Kora are complicated. Issues about China are somewhat complicated from a diplomatic standpoint. Each reporter kept asking why we were getting pushed around and McClellan had no response. But at the end of the day, Taiwan is a democracy, and China is not. We're letting ourselves get pushed around and humiliating our friends simply to sell more washing machines. Remember when China stole our spy plane? Yeah, we were in the wrong for spying on them, but Bush still could've shown some backbone. Add this to the mix and you see that 43 is all big into blowing up small countries that can't oppose us, but when it comes to actually staring down one of the most dangerous countries in the world, he blinks. And then apologizes. What a wuss.

For those who missed it, I'll now recap the debate further:

The first 45 minutes were a complete joke. Transcript here:

But to summarize, the first two rounds of questions (over 18 in all) were all about process, money and polls. The first question set the tone, with Koppel asking everyone if Dean could beat Bush. Stupidly, only Dean raised his hand. Somewhere, Terry was screaming, I'm sure. Then Koppel asked the typical media questions of no substance like "You're riding low in the polls Mr. (Sharpton/Kucinich/Edwards/etc.), why do you think voters aren't supporting you?" These questions just filled airtime with fluff and the standard denial. It was worthless. Kucinich called Koppel on the idiocy which was sorely needed. After the debate, Joe Trippi added that (as the frontrunner) the Dean campaign was annoyed because they had had to go through all of these type of questions in the early debates and that it was as irrelevant then as it was now. Overall, ABC dropped the ball.

What's really interesting is that the planning wasn't supposed to go like that: This article display Koppel's decision to go off board and mess up their well laid plans.

Evidently Koppel didn't stay on message and that's why the format sucked. Plus, all the candidates (excluding the first question) rightly decided not to bash one another. But that doesn't make for an interesting debate, now does it?

The second 45 minutes were a better format, but almost no time was spend on domestic issues. It was all Iraq, which meant a snoozefest, except for Kucinich.

Okay, a candidate by candidate summary:

Dean: He didn't drop anything, although he received few softballs. His first (real - excluding the first 18 questions) question was about the 9/11-Saudi link, which he managed to work in several "I don't believe this theory" things. A decent response to a decent curveball. His second real question displayed the idiocy of the debate. This guy is the frontrunner and his second big question is: "Under what circumstances is it OK for a president or someone speaking on his or her behalf to lie to the American public?" Dean answered in about five seconds. A complete non-sequitur. At the time, it made no sense, because it didn't have to do with any other question before or after and because Dean answered it so quickly (along with his first question) there was no discussion about it. Only later, did I realize that the question might have been talking about President Clinton. But out of the blue, there was no way to think that. Later in the program Dean used his final statement (it felt like he only spoke 3 times) to complain that the debate hadn't been about real issues. Not as fiery as Kucinich, but he certainly didn't make any mistakes. His policy position on Iraq was one of the most nuanced points of the whole debate, mainly because he went back and forth about Afghanistan, the Shiites and setting up Democracies. It constrasted nicely with Kucinich's reactionary "US OUT, UN IN!" mantra.

Kerry: I was impressed with Kerry in this debate. Each moderator kept trying to get him to go after Dean and he never did. There was a religious question early on about the separation of church and state and Kerry trotted out a line straight out of some Aaron Sorkin screenplay about how we're people of faith but that President Kennedy said we should cherish the separation of church and state and then segued smoothly into saying the current administration wasn't conservative: they were radical. Later, he got another annoying process question and dealt with it well. At another point, he made a pitch for getting the MTBE problem tied to the GOP. It was a good night, for Kerry, when the issues were mentioned. The trouble was the debate, which limited talking about the issues. But I think most people would come away thinking Kerry did well.

Clark: Clark was served some choice softballs. His first (real - the first question was whether he was SUPPORTED BY THE CLINTONS!!!! Was Fox News anchoring the debate? Might as well have been.) question was about nuclear weapons in Russia, for god's sake, and whether that was a problem. Later Koppel asked Clark about strategic decisions about the Middle East. Another home run. I think your average Joe would come away thinking Clark was tied with Edwards for "winning" the debate simply because he had the softest questions.

Edwards: Speaking of Edwards, he was brilliant. He stayed on message: "I'm an outsider" was repeated over and over. And he kept labelling most of the others as "politicians". (Odd, perhaps, that the knock on Edwards is that he doesn't have enough experience, but he was using this in reverse on them!) No big gaffes and plenty of choice soundbites. I think most people would come away thinking that Edwards was a great guy that they'd vote for.

Kucinich: Cajones. He blew Koppel out of the water twice. Right up until he started going off on the semantic (non)distinction between supporting the "war" and supporting the "occupation" he was great. Until Dean echoed his sentiments later near the end about how the debate time was being wasted, he was the only one willing to go out on a limb and expose the poor planning ABC had done. Near the end he trotted out some crazy ideas about reparations to Iraqis (this was along with his "you can't support the occupation!) but most of the time he was on message and inspiring. I am always annoyed that Carol Moseley Braun is in the race, but Kucinich has a great ability to see what's going on and react. He also parried the abortion question somewhat well...although I think most Dems can eliminate him in a heartbeat because of his past.

Sharpton: A few jokes, not much else. I think he didn't have a final statement...and started to complain and then the debate ended. Ooops!

Lieberman: Best line was in response to the idiotic "timeline to leave Iraq" question. I swear Fox News came up with these questions. He said we need a "goalline not a timeline". Clark had to follow, and wasn't as eloquent. Lieberman tried to draw a distinction between him and Dean but it seemed lost in the shuffle, hence the aggressive spin room action afterwards.

Moseley-Braun: I just don't get it. She's reasonable and sane. But she was thrown tons of process questions and only got to work in her "men-only sign" line once.

Gephardt: I almost forgot. Gephardt was good but not great. It's clear that when the focus is on Iraq, he loses. He can't plausibly make the argument (as Kerry is getting better at) that Bush's war is a "bad" war, because he helped out. So he's forced to his grab bag of cliches. Admittedly, if you haven't heard them before they're cuter than Dean's stump cliches. But Dean's cliches seem to do with specific people or policies "if the costa rican have health insuracen", "ken lay and the boys" and Gephardts seem to be mostly metaphors "miserable failure" "doesn't play well with others", etc. Or maybe the distinction is that Gephardt seems to be always going after Bush himself, rather than the failure of the GOP in general. Gephardt didn't win this debate, but I think he did better than Lieberman.

Overall, a net plus for Clark and Edwards. Dean, by virtue of being gaffe-free, keeps his frontrunner status. Kerry looked good, but not as good as Clark and Edwards. Kucinich was fired up, which should earn him a few more internet dollars and hopefully keep Nader out of the race. (Wouldn't that be nice?) Sure, Dean has and will continue to be my man. But as I've said time and time again, Dean's strength is the campaign behind him, not the candidate. He's not the best debater, or the best looking, or the clearest, or the angriest, or the most eloquent. But the people behind him are fired up and willing to do anything to win. That will win the election in 2004.

More on the debate in a minute but first...

McCain Feingold just got upheld! This is a victory for democracy. Combined with Dean's novel fundraising skills, it means that the powerful can no longer influence elections as much as they used to.

I keep telling myself that tomorrow, the next day, I'll get to sleep a little earlier. And then I forget. Well, I'll worry about that tomorrow.

I'm slightly worried that my house and/or landlord may be falling apart. Hopefully this is merely due to sleep deprivation.

Okay, so the debate sucked. However, due to a fortuitous series of circumstances, I feel really good right now. At least three paranoiac items rattling around in the back of my mind were all neatly stood up and knocked down in record time as I gulped down a deliciously salty/cheesy sandwich of bacon and turkey. Mmm. Nothing like dispatching evil demons.

Now that I'm in a great mood, I can say that the debate didn't live up to my expectations. The first 45 minutes were wasted debating the "significance" of Gore's endoresement of Dean and other process laden minutiae. Dean was asked two questions: the first was a lie, and the second was a non-sequitur which he answered in 15 seconds, without any rhyme or reason. (The second question was "is it ever appropriate for the prez to lie?" to which Dean responded, "well, if there was some issue of national security or if people were going to die, sure, a prez could lie". No reason was given for the question. It had nothing to do with anything. Completely bizarre.) Of the next 45 minutes, a full 35 were spent discussing Iraq.

The second half wasn't bad, but since so much time was spent on Iraq, little of consequence was mentioned. Only Kucinich "I'll bring the troops home" sparked things up.

Edwards got tons of time to speak, and used it well. Clark sounded good, as did Kerry (by not attacking he looked very presidential as opposed to Gephardt). Kucinich was, as usual, the only one with ideas outside the mainstream. Dean had so little time to talk that he had to interject at the end that he wished they'd gotten to talk about real issues. Kucinich brought this up twice in the first 45 minutes when all the process questions were rattling back and forth.

Kucinich and Dean were both spot on: the debate was poorly designed. I hate when the media ask a question like "Well, Candidate X, you're not doing well in the latest poll, so why aren't voters catching onto you?" That's not even a real question: it's a gotcha question that all candidates have to first deny, then explain away.

If I were designing a debate I'd keep the two part format, but in the first part I'd simply ask each candidate to elucidate their position on one or two of a series of issues. In the second part I'd let each candidate ask one other candidate a question, with a time for rebuttal.

The problem with this debate was that the two moderators, Ted Koppel and some idiotic New Hampshire guy, just had bad questions. No pretense was made of challenging questions or of nuance. Just fluff. I couldn't believe it.

Now, however, the debate seems far away. I may have to add some new nix to the group soon, which is testing my skills at nomenclature. We'll see how I make out if and when the list grows. For now, I'm just enjoying my new found groove.

Worst

Debate

Ever!

I'm not going to dignify this horrible debate with any thought right now. It was a disgrace to the American People.

I'm trying to figure out where I can catch the debate followed by 24. Given that it's 3 hours of programming, I hardly feel that it would be appropriate to prevent my housemates from watching anything on television.

Annoyingly, there's a meeting I'm supposed to go to at 7:00 as well, which is going to be super boring so I'm not attending it.

Which leaves me still looking for some place showing C-SPAN. Preferably with food and/or beverages.

Look. I work for a lobbying firm. But the rules are clear and simple. For you newbies, I'll explain below. Why the discussion? Well, because something's rotten in the House and it needs to be uncovered.

The other night, while discussing some obscure legal term with Fincher, she asked me about quid pro quo and what it entailed. In the lobbying world, there's supposed to be a wall between money and politics. In realiy, of course, this is an elaborate shell game. Groups pay lobbyists money to go to the hill to fete Congressmen and Senators to pass legislation to help said groups. But the heart of lobbying is theoretically to show a particular Senator why it would be in that Senator's interest to vote a certain way.

Let say I'm a small business owner who sells fish grown in "fish farms". My fish are big and fat but they occasionally get wacky diseases which seem to kill them more easily than river-spawned fish. Now, I'm too small to get a lobby for me, so I join up with fish-farmers around the country and form an association. The association collects dues from all the members, and hires a lobbying firm to represent its interests on Capitol Hill. (This, by the way, is what is known to politicians as a "special interest" because the interests of fish-farmers are fairly narrow. They benefit a few, rather than a large group. Although, over the years, the GOP has worked hard to paint larger groups like the ACLU, AARP and various unions as "special interests". Normally, however, such terminology is reserved for groups with a singular purpose like the NRA, or MADD, etc. Groups which have only one interest and are willing to compromise on other side issues to achieve their ultimate goal.)

So the fish-farmers asssociation of america hires Moe, Larry and Curly Associates to represent them on the hill. Immediately, MLC goes to work telling Senators with fish farmers in their state that if they support an earmark to study the effects of disease on farmfish at local univiersities, that local fish farmers (read: constituents) will benefit. Not to mention the nice shiny new labs which could be build to study the diseases at the local state university. So far, so good. This part of lobbying is all above board and perfectly legal. There are rules about taking people out to dinner, etc. and how much legislation lobbyists can write but most people would agree this is perfectly reasonable. Sure, the taxpayer gets hit with the cost at the end, but good pork helps everyone, not just a few. We could argue about this in another setting. but it's beside the point.

Say, however, that a certain Senator is holding out against the bill. And he's from a state that has no fish-farmers or universities doing said research. So he has no interest in helping. Normally, lobbyists would work to see what he would want and attempt to trade. Such is the nature of government. What is un-kosher, however, is to threaten said Senator or Representative. Or to offer him money in exchange for his vote. That's cheating. The trouble is, because elections are so expensive to run, bribes are no longer simple "we give you a bag of cash" but instead are "we'll help re-elect you...which will cost us $200K". It's that fine line between saying "we'll support you" and "if you cross us we'll blow you out of the water" that makes all the difference. Enter the problem. If the guy was bribed by the house leadership, then they are liable, not the lobbyists that entreated Hastert, et al, to twist some arms. And they could go to jail. That's the rules. If my office lives by them, so should they.

Any questions? Oh yeah, we got hit by an earthquake. I dismissed it at the time because I was watching Inside Politics.

Paul Simon, who endorsed Howard Dean before he went into surgery, just passed away during said procedure. This guy was cool, bow-tie and all, and it's a shame he's no longer with us. He was fiscally conservative...a rare trait in these times. Paul, we'll miss you.

My shoe has a hole in it. Nicely, no one has pointed this out to me, so I'm now faced with the unenviable situation of attempting to get the cobbler to fix it on a rush basis before the holiday parties pick up.

The Gore speech was good. On a sidenote, as usual, the TNR Primary (the the new republic primary? yeah...poor grammer but what're you going to do about it?) seems to be anointing John Kerry as the December winner early by awarding him 4 straight A ratings.

Let's see, Lieberman won the first month, followed by Edwards, then Graham, then Lieberman, then Edwards, then Lieberman, then Edwards. Now Kerry's leading. What's the common theme? Well, mainly that all of these candidates have little to no chance of winning DC, Iowa or NH. So they are all irrelevant. Way to go, TNR.

Meanwhile, in the real world, things aren't so hot.

Iraq continues to deteriorate beyond belief.

China is threatening to start WWIII over Taiwan's desire for independence.

Moscow is blowing up as well.

I'm glad my life is fine, but this is some messed up stuff. We're this close to being more violent than before, yet even more combat divisions are being classified as unready. Remember when 43 made some crack about that?

The kids in Iowa are starting to get rowdy. Go check them out.

After all the good news of the past several days (Dean/Ravens/Etc.) I want to remind everyone to tune in tonight to watch the Democratic Presidential Debate at 7:00 on C-SPAN. I'm not sure where I'll be watching it (because I need to watch 24 afterwards) but whereever I go, it's sure to be a boisterous affair.

The blue skies and cool weather have also been nice this morning. And my pile of work, though large as usual, isn't insurmountable. I may actually be able to knock most of it out of the park today.

So watch the debate!

The Gorebat is up!

Click on the bat to thank Al, personally. For me, a Gore supporter, this is the best moment yet in the Dean campaign. We've got the old tech and new tech together at last. There's no way that Bush can defeat us now.

New Gallup numbers right here show Dean coming out on top for good. Plus a nifty graphic that's hard to see and that I'm too tired to do anything but image suck:

The graphic is pretty lousy. So lousy that I'm taking it down. If you want to see it, just head for the gallup site linked above. Thanks.

There you go. I'm leaving work in a minute.

Yes, I'm up far too late at work. That said, I just got this in my e-mail box:

| Hi all,
|
| I have noticed that the icons on my desktop for certain programs are
| changing all the time. One day it was a piece of paper with blue
| blocks on it, today it is a yellow "i" in a red circle - any idea
| what is going on?
|
| TIA,
| Riva

To which was snarkily replied:

|| Hi all,
||
|| I have noticed that the icons on my desktop for certain programs are
|| changing all the time. One day it was a piece of paper with blue
|| blocks on it, today it is a yellow "i" in a red circle - any idea
|| what is going on?
||
|
| I'm guessing you're using an old version of the linux kernel. Simply
| change line number 156 in kernel.cpp from:
|
| iDesktop_goofiness = 1;
| to
| iDesktop_goofiness = 0;
|
| and recompile.
|
||| Will

To which was added:

|| I'm guessing you're using an old version of the linux kernel. Simply
|| change line number 156 in kernel.cpp from:
||
|| iDesktop_goofiness = 1;
|| to
|| iDesktop_goofiness = 0;
||
|| and recompile.
|
| Kind of like RFC3514. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3514.txt
|
|
| ;)
|
| Chris.

Yeah, I'm punchy. The above was followed by the listmom intervening. Everyone should click on the link above though. It's amusing.

Maybe it's the full moon, or my desire to stop working and get some sleep. The long, cold walk home isn't very inviting.

On the way to work this morning I heard a man yelling incoherently. As I drew closer, I saw he was wearing bright aquamarine lycra tights and dancing in the street with a walkman. Every few steps he'd twirl around, yell at the sky, and then jog a few feet in a different direction. Strange stuff. But then I see a nicely dressed man emerge from the hotel and call to him. The crazy guy runs over and the rich man starts to talk to him as an old friend would. I dismiss it but then a man driving a bus slows down, pops his window open, and gives a shout out to both men, whom he recognizes. Crazy, indeed.

This evening, mere minutes before I run into an old college friend, Fincher and I enter a shopping mart. She picks up a box of something-or-other, and throws it into my basket. Then she pauses before selecting a container of orange juice. As she does so, a white-haired old man rushes towards the two of us, yelling that he wants to come home and have dinner with us.

Stunned, I say that we actually already had dinner. This gets the man going even faster, as he explains how he loves to eat dessert in lieu of dinner. He even has an amusing anecdote about his latest trip to Tijuana and how he had his dinner bagged up there so that he could enjoy dessert. Fincher and I are both struck by the sheer oddness of the situation. Eventually, he leaves us alone. But as we check out, he notices that we have bananas in the bag and makes some comment about wanting a banana split. What an oddball.

Like I said, maybe it's the moon. Lots of lunatics around, especially in this post-gore-dean environment.

I knew from some sources that Kerry's campaign was really caught off-guard by the news about Dean and Gore. But I didn't have any real evidence I could reproduce here. Fortunately, Kerry's people screwed themselves without any help. I'll reprint the entire e-mail from &c:

From: Stephanie Cutter [mailto:scutter@johnkerry.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 5:09 PM To: 'David Wade'; 'mdonilon@sddmedia.com'; 'Mark Mellman'; 'Michael Meehan'; 'David Morehouse'; 'Mary Beth Cahill' Cc: 'scutter@johnkerry.com' Subject: STATEMENT OPTIONS -- NO OTHER CANDIDATE HAS BEEN QUOTED YET, ONLY SPOKESPEOPLE

HERE ARE SOME OPTIONS. I don't think kerry should comment, unless asked at a press event?. Not other campaign has issued a statement...

Contact: Stephanie Cutter

202-528-0143

STATEMENT OF JOHN KERRY

On Gore Endorsement of Dean

"I respect Al Gore. I worked with him in the Senate, and I endorsed him early in his hard fought campaign for the presidency four years ago. But, this election is about the future, not about the past. I have the experience and the vision to reverse George Bush's radical agenda and putting America back on track on my first day in office. This election will be decided by voters, across the country, beginning with voters in Iowa."

Can anyone say...don't e-mail people before you get your message set? Wow. Kerry must be furious at them.

Deborah just agreed to go to Iowa with me.

Janklow was convicted on all counts and will resign January 20th.

Gore endorsed Dean.

I am full of tasty greek food and tastier Fincher conversation.

Life is good. That fortune cookie awhile back was right on the mark. If only I believed in fate!

One final bit before getting back to work. There's also a rumor that Joe Lieberman might be calling it quits, which then freed up Gore to endorse Dean, which then meant someone leaked it. I think this is too speculative, but if it was true it would be a bombshell, because it would mean that the Dem field was being narrowed (as it should be) based on Gore's decision.

Here's the ongoing story. It's too big for me to write about for a bit. My co-worker is getting tons of phone calls from her ex-co-workers over with Gore. I think the official endoresement will occur tomorrow, and that tonight is just in place for the media cycle.

Word on the street says tomorrow, in Iowa, around noon. But I'm also hearing about Harlem and New Hampshire. More details as I get them. My contacts are all over the place on this. But damn! Gore is huge. I loved that guy. He was incredible. Him backing Dean is amazing.

Gore is endorsing Dean.

That's it. It's over. Damn.

Speaking of small cute little dogs that some people might find objectionable...here's the latest from Mr. Perkins:

As opposed to my consistent ability to foment enemies at every turn (just ask college comrades Brad, Helena, Deborah, et al.), it appears that in the nomination process, Dean appears to be the most positive candidate there. Seems weird, eh? But then look at that ARG poll I mentioned last week. Dean is at the top with a 7% unfavorable rating. 10%? 7%? Even a cute little puppy would receive a higher unfavorable rating than that. The supposed "backlash" to Dean's "anger" is nothing more than media hype. Most people who have followed the campaign and are paying attention seem to like Dean. What's odd is that as time has progressed, Dean's positives keep going up, his unknown factor keeps lowering, but his negatives keep hovering, around the country, below or at 10%. That's unheard of.

Every time someone says Dean can't win I remember that these people are part of the 10%. They just don't get it, but they will soon.

At the risk of sounding manipulative, a ex-co-worker who owes me some cash for some consulting I did called up a couple times.

I used to get in trouble for this at my past workplace, but in this instance, it seemed somewhat appropriate to answer the phone, on speakerphone, and conduct the conversation from there. Helena used to complain to no end when I'd put her on speakerphone...so much so, in fact, that I used to do it just to see what her reaction would be. Immature? Sure. Fun? You bet. People have this weird idea that people eavesdrop only to conversations on speakerphone when in fact, most of the best gossip is always heard through the one-way filter of a regular phone conversation, perhaps buffered by a closed door. That indicates something indiscreet is going on. A speakerphone conversation, on the other hand, has to be innocuous, right? And both parties understand it to be so.

So the guy's talking, but he knows he's on speakerphone, so the conversation goes well. At the end, I resolve his problem fairly quickly and as a side benefit, the entire office gets to listen in.

Now I've got some crazy reporter calling me up to ask me about some article some other guy wrote from over a month ago to inquire as to the sources. What this has to do with my job (um...the article is on the website? send the guy to edward!) I'm not aware of, but now I've just added yet another boring person to talk to to the list.

Maybe I'll put him on speakerphone.

Now that I'm trying to almost completely rebuild federalist, rent a videoconference room and in, general, stay on top of the latest news and info, you'd think I'd get a five minute break from blogging. Add to that the fact that I was going to put together a witty testimonaial for a certain friend, and my time is stretched thinly.

With that said, I just completed a short review of Quicksilver. Don't bother reading it. Just go buy the book.

On the social front, I have little to relate, although plenty of political stuff is going on. My friend in Iowa appears to be well (based on a short ten minute IM session this morning) and my trip appears to be moving ahead.

Whoops. I almost missed Inside Politics. Time to log off for a second...

werkz advice: call in sick, take the day off, go buy this book and plow through it.

Stephenson's latest work, "Quicksilver" is as far from "Snow Crash" as one could come. The only similiary is at the start, when a major character is named in a bitter pun, much like Hiro Protagonist from SC. In this case, the character is called Enoch Root (Enoch->Eunuch->Unix->Root get it? no? well, you're not geeky enough then. root is the name of the su, or superuser, of any unix box. it's...never mind)

The story follows the invention of the Calculus and the intrigues that surround it. A bawdy tale of swords, sex and sailing, the narrative throughout is woven with such pithy humor that even the most mundane events seem to come alive. At the end of the book, one is left wanting still more, which is excellent, because the book is only part one in a series. So get check it out today.

Okay, I "borrowed" the following from atrios but it's still priceless. Enjoy!

As Deborah pointed out to me on Thursday, there's a tendency for me to avoid writing about events which occur in direct relation to the amount of late-night fun I attach to them. If for instance, like this evening, I'm up fairly late, I don't arrive back to write anything, despite having a good time. It's not a reflection (in tonight's case) of Fincher, or of anything else, for that matter. It's simply that I'm tired.

You could say the same about Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday night, etc. I had a good time in each case (a too good time Thursday evening!) and therefore was unable to write about it due to time constraints.

The lunchhour presents an opportune time, but Thursday's festivities knocked me off-kilter so I was unable to detail that night on Friday. Let's just say that I went out, hung out with Deborah and Kevin (who had never met one another, despite my moving them on the same day!) at St. Ex. and ended the night on a good note. I'm trying to get Deborah to agree to join me when I travel to Iowa in January, as it would be a road-trip to remember for the ages. Previously, Leto and Sigourney held the record for lengthy road-trips, with Deborah tying both this Homecoming. This could put her over the mark. Sadly, although Helena was part of The Greated Road Trip Ever, most of that time was spent solely with Brad. All the highlights, save for our dehydrated ascent of Mt. Lemon and the subsequent International Line Sprint to Mexico, Helena partook in. She's still somewhat bitter about that, and perhaps one day I can make it up to her. But I digress from the tales of the present to those of the past. Thursday, as I was saying, was quite enjoyable. The next day I was hurting, but so be it. It was worth it.

Friday night I hung out early with Kristen and Friends (avoiding the always-enjoyable First Friday in the process, which was a loss) at a journalist haunt. An interesting place, to be sure. One of Kristen's friend's friends was introduced to me while chewing gum. I hate that. But she was nice, at least. I bowed out from their company to attend my other event near Dupont, with a few friends who have increasingly turned domestic of late. It was fun, but the expectation of an early bedtime was a little lame, for those of a certain age-group. Upon my egress from the situation at an ungodly early hour, I called Kristen to see if her group was still out, but they too had admitted defeat. Little did I know but while underground (for such was the locale I was in) Fincher called and idiotically declined to leave a message, leaving me no trace of her presence later, upon my emergence into the snowy night. As fate would have it, while she wished to get a bite to eat (unable to predict her noodle-laced future) I walked close by, went home, and watched several sleep deprived episodes of Cowboy Bebop. (A fate I may wish upon myself in a minute here...)

Saturday I lazed about the house, did some laundry, and procrastinated in general before my office party. I ended up chilling with Fincher, but as my star-crossed path would have it, I left an hour early to go to my party. Standing in subzero weather for an hour is bad, but doing so with the knowledge that one has forsaken comfort and conversation out of sheer stupidy is far worse. Eventually, the hour hand moved over and I departed for the wilds of Bethesda. Our office party was fun, a welcome change where most of the cool kids were allowed to hang out together. It ended all too early, yet my body was refreshed to learn it would get some extra sleep out of the deal. No winning time for these players, if we must call them that.

Today I arose late, prepared to do some canvassing, yet noticed that the Ravens were playing, and so watched the game instead. With the victory today, we've now moved into first place and stand on the verge of winning the division for the first time in Raven's history. (Yes, when we won the superbowl we weren't leading the division...) That was fun.

In the afternoon, I rolled to Ben's to meet Gwyn and friends. The crew of regulars has grown so small as to be an impediment to the actual amount of work being done. Evidently we've spent some time laboring as to a rally the week before the primary. I'm happy that we'll be enjoying a party but it seems somewhat premature in lieu of actual work. However, being one of the four people there, I suppose I can't complain to them, can I? Later this evening Gwyn noted that the name of my letter-writing tool sounded somewhat inappropriate.

To be clear, for all you non-Poly Sci majors: publius was the pseudonym under which Hamilton, Madison, etc. wrote the Federalist Papers. You know, the rationale to endorse the constitution? Yeah, Gwyn was right: it sounds like a dirty word. So I changed the letter-writing tool to the far more austere: federalist. Gwyn also provided me with a list of several enhancements which will far outstrip the simple goals I set for myself several weeks ago. Oh, well. I guess I'll have plenty to work on later today.

The time, of course, is because I hung out with Fincher and managed to knock off Stephenson's latest tome. Hopefully I'll review it shortly. But for now, the jazz-pop melange melodies are calling, to be followed by a full systems crash.

I didn't know this until today, but you can get a whole carton of eegees shippped directly to your door. If anyone wants to give me an early Christmas gift...

werkz advice: go rent it. now.

Better Luck Tomorrow is a great tale of overachievers gone awry. Shot through the eyes of several Asian-American kids in California the movie shows their descent from good grades to petty theft to outright homicide. Along the way are plenty of laughs and a great deal of moments where you just want to slap the main character silly. Of course, the subject matter is somewhat serious, but the frequent moments of hilarity permeate every aspect of the movie, making it a 'Breakfast Club' for the 21st century. stop reading this and rent it now.

'werkz advice: go rent it!

Whale Rider is a simple story of a young Maori girl who survives childbirth even as her twin brother and mother pass away. She is named after the mythical leader who rode a whale to bring her people to their current land, namely, Paikea. The somewhat worn "she's a girl so she can't lead the tribe" dynamic is what the movie revolves around, but excellent characters from the crusty grandfather who simultaneously loves and hates her to the washed up dope-smoking uncle who just happens to be great at Maori combat all make the movie well worth watching.

Okay, based on the Zogby poll yesterday and the brand spankin' new poll from ARG today it appears that Dean is cruising to victory in New Hampshire. I blew an hour and a half yesterday writing some letters at the latest Dean Meetup which now appears a cakewalk.

Let me also just say that I'm quite annoyed that the number of passionate people involved with the Dean campaign has levelled off, mainly because most of the early adopters have migrated up in the hierarchy. So at last night's meetup we were "treated" to listening to a boring conference call between someone in New Hampshire and here. Plus, I had to listen to several minutes of blather about how we should go to Iowa and New Hampshire.

Don't get me wrong: I'm still going to go to Iowa, which is a much tighter contest than NH. But the whole reason DC is getting disrespected is because of the petulance of the Iowa and NH voters who seem to think they deserve special significance. There are plenty of DC Dems who are angry, but many in the Dean campaign don't understand that DC is more important than padding a already sure victory in NH.

If you're too lazy to read the polls mentioned above, the simple fact is this: Dean is around 43-45% and the nearest competitor, Kerry, is around 12-13%. That's huge. He's walking away with it.

I'd like to say that it's all a result of Dean standing up to Bush but regardless now it even appears that Terry has some cajones. Go DNC!

I've been super-busy lately with fifty million different things flying around me but I finally finished up work on federalist an hour ago so I now have time to write some thoughts down.

Last night, before I run into the rats, I roll over to Woodley Park to catch 24. I leave with plenty of time to spare, but the link fails me badly, and I end up waiting 20 minutes to catch a bus. When I finally see it (on the other side of the road) the next bus is only 2 minutes behind it, meaning that it was running at least 15 minutes behind the normal schedule and that the next bus almost passed it.

By the time I roll into the Mariott to check out the show, there are only seconds before it begins. Fincher and I see a large sign announcing a conference and the low-level hum turns into a throaty roar as we stride into an atrium filled with chair after chair of defense contractors. They're already watching something on the big screen tv. That's right: Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.

Fincher and I walk around for a second before my mind is set and then we sit down at a table a few feet away from the tv. I casually ask the server if I can change the channel and she says sure, but that there's no remote. So I sneak up to the tv, in front of all of the old white guys, and switch it from Fox News to Fox. No grumbles of dissent. Then I turn up the volume.

Seconds later, a couple of guys who were even closer leave their table, allowing us to upgrade, just as the opening credits for 24 begin to roll. Perfection. Surrounded by slightly low-class contractors (I'm not going to repeat some of the stories Fincher overheard) I managed to have a terrific time.

I passed about seven rats (medium-sized) on my walk home by Adams-Morgan this evening. Kind of a statement about DC. On the plus side, I learned that the district has moved into the "most progressive city in the world" status by announcing that it will distribute free condoms in public buildings all across the city. DC rocks.

I've got some reviews to put up, more work to be done on federalist, finishing up the nicknames page, tons of work at the office to knock out and people banging on my door for idiotic computer help.

So, last night, in order to catch up, I went home, blew an hour watching Hardball (Howard Dean was on this week) and rolled to a Clark "Let's All Bash Howard Dean" Meetup afterwards. The Meetup (I showed up late) evidently consisted mostly of fundraising efforts. I wonder why some Dems don't get it: raising money in and of itself is not a sign of strength. Sure, Dean is good at raising money...but the fact that's he great at building an organization is a far better sign. Money may buy ads, but word-of-mouth is priceless. After the Clark Meetup, I headed over to Ben's with Fincher and Friends, then headed back to watch some episodes of Cowboy Bebop I borrowed from Brad. Then I surfed the web for a bit.

Yeah, no useful work got done. Procrastination 1, Work 0. We'll see how today goes.

According to this poll Dean is crushing his other challengers in DC. This after the previous conventional wisdom of "Sharpton will win DC because he's black" crumbled. Even more interesting? If you knock out the guys who refused to campaign here, Dean beat Sharpton 45-11. That's a heck of a lead...and the reason why is that DC voters are drawn to Dean's visits, his stance on issues, and his support for DC rights first and foremost. This poll warmed my turkey stuffed heart.

Due to an odd request, I went searching through some old e-mail I'd send over 4 years ago to some people. During the process, I ended up reading some old e-mail I'd sent over 6 years ago and wow, it was weird. First off, most of the messages make me sound like some sort of work-nazi, e.g.

To:XXXX
From: XXXX
Subject: I'm Ticked
Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1999 01:57:20 -0400
Okay, I'm going to head back to my dorm in a minute. I managed to:

1) Enter the J.P.Morgan, Take a Break, Council Travel, Tripod and Janus Capital ads into the invoice thing. I didn't print them up because we don't have the tearsheets and we don't have all the ads from 10/22 in the invoice thing anyway. I need the information on Bankers Trust and Japan Exchange and Columbia Law School, as well as any clarification you can make regarding the D.E. Shaw ad. It came in late, and they appear to be paying us $1283.94 each time we run it....(which is every week for four weeks).

2.) Realize that almost all of the messages on the answering machine are for you. Could you call some of the people back, if you haven't. I'd do it, but I don't know what they're talking about. Sorry to sound negative.

Anyway, I'm running on empty now, so like I said in the earlier one, if you could get back to me today sometime so that we could talk before tomorrow, I'd appreciate it greatly. Again, sorry to be a jerk about this whole deal. I don't understand what the hell MXXX is doing, especially regarding the phone....and why he hasn't mailed the billing junk yet. And why we aren't going to get paid this week. I'll speak up on Thursday night very strongly regarding those issues.

Yeah, that was at 1:57 in the morning. And there were tons of other insightful missives where I cracked the whip about idiotic things. One had me justifying a meeting the next day because "I might as well skip Physics because I'll sleep through it otherwise". Quality flashbacks. I wonder if, years from now, i look back at the messages I send to other people and wonder if these ones right now sound silly and superficial. Actually, I don't wonder: I know they will. Every year I've been around, the previous one has seemed shallow and petty, as if I'm climbing to the top of a mountain and looking back evey so often to say "well, that wasn't that high" and to trudge forward. I've burst through the first layer of clouds but there's no end in sight. Reminds me of the time I cycled up Mt. Lemon: each time I turned a corner and thought "there's the top" I'd ride up another mile and realize that I was mistaken. The thing just didn't end.

Okay, I got back to town. But technically, I'm not back until tomorrow, okay? I don't want to have to deal with the piles of e-mail, phone calls, business stuff, etc. I just want to crash.

On a sidenote: several of you people complained that the nicknames page wasn't right over the break. Yeah, well, I didn't intend for people to read it until Monday...er...today. So it's now been update to include almost everyone. However, I will warn people that it's not so that you can deduce other people: it's for my use to help me keep track of the various pseudonyms floating around. It's still not totally complete but I'm going to wait until tomorrow to flesh it out further.

Finally, Brad complained that his profile was lame. So I updated it. Fincher pointed out to me that Helena had written her own but when I read it I realized that she'd (Fincher) been duped: I wrote that profile. It's still valid today. Now if only I could improve my own a bit.

I'm currently working on federalist, a letter writing tool which can be adapted for any database of names and addresses. Specifically, I'm working on it for the DC for Dean volunteer group, but theoretically it could be used for anyone. If you're interested, go ahead and give it a whirl. The addresses in the database are fake, so don't sweat that.

I'm too stuffed full of turkey and other thanksgiving delights to write much, but a figured a few words were in order:

IYAAZDV7AABVggAAAEAlQABkO1cAAFWHAAAAQCkAAGRBMwAAVYwAAABALMAAZEcPAABVkQAAAEAw gABkTOsAAFWWAAAAQDOAAGRRmwAAVZoAAABAN0AAZFd3AABVnwAAAEA7AABkXVMAAFWkAAAAQD7A AGRjLwAAVakAAABAQoAAZGkLAABVrgAAAEBGQABkbucAAFWzAAAAQEoAAGR0wwAAVbgAAABATQAA ZHlzAABVvAAAAEBQwABkf08AAFXBAAAAQFSAAGSFKwAAVcYAAABAWEAAZIsHAABVywAAAEBcAABk kOMAAFXQAAAAQF/AAGSWvwAAVdUAAABAY4AAZJybAABV2gAAAEBmgABkoUsAAFXeAAAAQGpAAGSn JwAAVeMAAABAbgAAZK0DAABV6AAAAEBxwABkst8AAFXtAAAAQHWAAGS4uwAAVfIAAABAeUAAZL6X AABV9wAAAEB9AABkxHMAAFX8AAAAQIAAAGTJIwAAVgAAAABAg8AAZM7/AABWBQAAAECHgABk1NsA AFYKAAAAQItAAGTatwAAVg8AAABAjwAAZOCTAABWFAAAAECSwABk5m8AAFYZAAAAQJaAAGTsSwAA Vh4AAABAmkAAZPInAABWIwAAAECdQABk9tcAAFYnAAAAQKEAAGT8swAAViwAAABApMAAZQKPAABW MQAAAECogABlCGsAAFY2AAAAQKxAAGUORwAAVjsAAABAsAAAZRQjAABWQAAAAECzwABlGf8AAFZF AAAAQLbAAGUerwAAVkkAAABAuoAAZSSLAABWTgAAAEC+QABlKmcAAFZTAAAAQMIAAGUwQwAAVlgA AABAxcAAZTYfAABWXQAAAEDJgABlO/sAAFZiAAAAQM1AAGVB1wAAVmcAAABA0EAAZUaHAABWawAA AEDUAABlTGMAAFZwAAAAQNfAAGVSPwAAVnUAAABA24AAZVgbAABWegAAAEDfQABlXfcAAFZ/AAAA QOMAAGVj0wAAVoQAAABA5sAAZW