OK, its not an original topic, and I'm not telling you anything you don't know. But can we pause a moment to reflect that we live in a society where loving couples compete for money by sticking their partners head in a box and filling it with snakes? At some point, don't you think: Wow, the Romans really had their act together!
And Vice President Cheney just said that Iran is at the top of the list for trouble spots in the world. And millions will believe and follow the march to war to "defend ourselves" and "spread freedom", and we'll be marching right into Tehran before this year is out. Then it will be Syria, and Jordan and Yemen had best be on their best behavior if they don't want to witness "freedom on the march".
Communication is vastly improved, diversity of opinion has never been more easily accessible and yet the majority are happy to bite on the party line and swallow it whole. Are we getting stupider? I say no. I say that we just don't care. It takes too much time to give a shit, when you can watch people have snakes dropped on their head.
Which says to me that we didn't learn the most important lesson of 9/11: That we are not alone in the world, that we can't afford apathy, and that considering it to be "someone else's problem" is not an option.
I'm getting worried that we're not going to be the good guys for much longer, and that scares me. I'm only glad that I've started learning Chinese. I offer no solutions, I just want people to take a moment and really look at where we're at. Because it's scary, and demands attention.
Just a quick appeal... many have donated generously to causes in support of tsunami relief. This is a very worthy cause and donation and it is great if you have made the effort. But please remember that terrible things somewhat below the scale of 150,000 dead happen quite regularly, and many of these organizations are doing good work year-round, and could really use your help when something happens that doesn't get world-wide attention. So please, if you haven't donated anything, consider donating part now and part in six months from now, when the excellent efforts of UNICEF and the Red Cross are off the nightly news, but are still making a big difference to people worldwide. If you have given something, consdier adding something extra later in the year, or even on the one-year anniversary. As much as help has been needed over the last month, it will still be needed later, when people aren't paying as much attention.
Today, Cassini-Huygens begins exploration of Saturn's moon Titan. Titan could only logically be called a moon when you consider that its next to Jupiter and Saturn. By itself, its larger than planets Mercury and Pluto. So its sort of like the way I'd be a center if I played on a basketball team at work, but in the NBA I'd be a (very) small forward. Well, and I'd be a bad forward at that, but that's not really the point I'm making.
Anyway, Titan is surrounded by dense orange clouds, made up primarily of nitrogen but also containing methane. Where does the methane come from? On Earth it comes from biomasses degrading or cows farting. Are there farting cows on Titan? That seems unlikely as average temperature is several hundred degrees below zero F.
Because of this cloud cover, though, we don't really know what's down there. There are some theories, but there has been very little observation of the surface. Is it icy mountains or vast seas of liquid methane? We don't know.
This should all change today, when the Huuygens probe (named after the Danish astronomer Christian Huygens who discovered Titan) enters into the atmosphere around Titan and begins its 2 and a half hour descent to the planets surface. Huuygens was carried to the moon by Cassini, another probe, which released Huuygens and sent it on its path to Titan several weeks ago.
NASA just announced that Huygens has in fact landed on Titan. But even at the speed of light it takes over an hour for Cassini to transmit the results. I'll update this as we learn more. But its an exciting mission that not a lot of people seem to know about and I wanted to bring it up and congratulate JPL on the work they've done.
UPDATE: It's official! Huygens has landed on Titan and is sending its data back to Cassini, which is then passing it on back to Earth. Students at radio telescopes in West Virginia and the Mojave desert have detected the signal from Huygens directly. From the pictures so far Titan looks .... dark. Well, the photos will get better as time goes on anyway.
Notes;
Here's some links on the project and the results
Cassini-Huuygens main page
Cassini Images
The short version: Don't believe the hype!
Got a Voicemail at work, offering me an "exciting opportunity" for employment.
It actually set off my shady detector in three different ways:
1) The caller never said where he got my name from, and I'm familiar enough with the current economy to know that no one is calling other people to give them jobs right now, in fact, job seekers are lucky to get a fuad call rejecting them.
2) He offered me substantial income, part-time or full-time, if I'm interested in doing something different from my current position or looking for some extra money on the side. But he didn't say what my current position was, nor what the new thing was. How does he know I'm not doing it already? Hell, how do I know? If he can't (won't) tell you even what the hell it is: Beware.
3) When saying what company he represented he mumbled, so that I couldn't hear it well at all. Even if this had been accidental, he didn't provide any detail on how I would go about finding out more information on his company, which is a logical first step for any job seeker (or legitimate employer).
I'm not really even looking for another job at the moment, but I was curious enough to check into it some more. I called, and (luckily) I got his voicemail, which allowed me to at least find the name of the company: Primerica. This wasn't actually the name he mumbled on my voicemail, which was Citigroup. While they are related in a corporate sense, it seems that their ways of doing business are very different. In any case I did a Google search and the second link was this:
PrimericaBuster
It would appear that this is a system which is not *just* multi-level marketing, but insurance fraud rolled into it at the same time. The basic idea is to call people and talk them into cancelling their existing life-insurance and convert it into term (read: temporary) life-insurance. While there could be some reasons for doing this, the methods outlined in the warning site don't seem above-board. And as a bonus, you make more when you recruit more "members" to sell under you. That's right, It's Amway Insurance Salesman. Yeah and there's a $200 fee to join.
In any case, the site above goes into much greater detail. I just wanted to share since, while I don't figure any of you would be taken in by this, it is possible you might waste some time like me just trying to pin down what the hell its about. And Primerica very directly targets the unemployed, who just might be a little more willing than most to "give it a try".
Note: If you've had great experience with multi-level marketing in your own life and have some great opportunities or products you'd like to share, then I'm happy you're happy, but please don't share. I don't care even a little.
While I'm thinking of it: Anyone out there want a Gmail trial account? If you aren't familiar with it, read the about page. One area of concern for some is that there are automatic filters to try to deliver targeted advertising. Some consider this an invasion of privacy, but don't seem to have the same concern about spam filters, which do essentially the same thing. In any case, it seems like a convenient service for free email from a company that has done its best not to be evil in the past. I've got a few referrals to get people in during the testing phase if anyone out there is interested.
Disclosure Statement: I am in no way affiliated and receive no compensation from Google. I do own some stock (read: very little) and happen to think they're cool though.
A long-overdue return to sanity: Who guessed it would start in Miami?
Dolphins rename stadium to: Dolphin's Stadium
Of course, there are still the few that had the class not to sell out in the first place: Thank you, Curly Lambeau.
Tsunami hits Newfoundland in 1929
Link from the Great Lakes Shipping message board
(http://www.boatnerd.com)
Reprinted verbatim from the Metro Times Dubious Achievement Awards, February 2004 (January 5-11 issue, 2005)
"
An Oakland County sheriff's deputy gets a surprise after a high-speed chase in pursuit of an errant pickup truck. Deputy Scott Howden tries to pull the driver over around 1AM on a Thursday after he runs a flashing red at Adams and Orion roads. The driver speeds off, then slams on his brake, forcing the deputy to swerve around. Then the driver rams the squad car from behind, bouncing it forward a couple of hundred feet. Howden gets out of his car and pulls his gun. Driver gets out of his truck and threatens to kill Howden. And here it gets weird: Driver swings a four-pound black poodle on a leash and tries to hit Howden -- who responds with Taser (doesn't stop him), nightstick (doesn't stop him) and pepper spray (finally stops him). The pooddle, now nicknamed Lucky by cops, goes to the Oakland County Animal Care Center, while the driver, facing charges including animal cruelty, is sent for psychiatric observation.
"
Now that you've had a chance to recover from election fatigue, I'd like to talk a bit about the electoral college.
The stupidest argument I hear everytime national elections roll around is how the electoral college is more fair to small states. "Without the electoral college," the argument goes, "the candidates would spend all their time in New York and California where there are more people and ignore states like Maine and North Dakota." Putting aside for a second that more people in an area means it *should* be more important, exactly how much time did the candidates spend in North Dakota? Or Montana, or Vermont, or Idaho? They spent all their time in Ohio and Florida and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the most populous states that they could still win a small percentage and actually didn't pay all that much attention to the states that have all the *people*. You know, the one who are voting and are served by the President? Why were they there? Political gamesmanship, in which a win by a hundred thousand votes (or even 500) can speak for the votes of many million people.
A friend sent me this analysis of the state by state results for the presidential election, which were then broken down to award electoral votes proportionally rather than all or nothing. However, electoral votes are quantized, inasmuch as an elector can only vote for one candidate, not place a .34 vote for one and a .66 vote for the other, so I recalculated again using simple rules of rounding, assuming that any elector receiveing more than 0.5 of the necessary votes will get them all. Here it is in HTML format so you can read along in another window.
As described, the first set of columns are the statewide percentage returns for Bush, Kerry, and other, along with the total number of electors for each state. In the next set of columns, you see the results as they were allocated under the current system, with the candidate who received the most votes in the state receiving all electors. The set to the right of that is with proportional electors, but without discretizing (which is useful to see how they are divided), and the final set is with discrete electoral votes awarded proportionally.
Some observations: All readers should notice immediately that our final result is the same. However, to my mind anyway, the manner of arriving at that result seems far more fair, and less contentious. We're no longer a collection of red and blue states. Rather, Kerry earned 13 electoral votes in Texas, while Bush picked up 4 votes in Massachussetts. All the states are purple, but our all-or-nothing system encourages the type of culture war that partisan politicians love so much.
There are some problems with going to a state-wide proportional system as outlined in the chart. One non-trivial one that should have popped out too all you mathemeticians in the audience is that we've lost two electors along the way. (They come from Massachussets and North Carolina.) This is a result of the pesky third party tallies being too small to earn an electoral vote, but large enough to pull the other candidates below a full 0.5. This could probably be resolved by awarding the final electoral vote to the candidate with a plurality of votes cast. Its also interesting to note that two states (New York and California) awarded electoral votes to 3rd parties. However, in practice this would probably not carry, as the third party vote is itself split, and individually no candidate would have had enough to earn an electoral vote. So we'd need to know what to do with these electors as well.
This was a somewhat interesting exercise for 2004, but I thought given how close the 2000 election was, it might prove even more interesting and I was not dissappointed. Here's my worksheet for 2000 Using a simple rounding formula makes my math easier, but it also introduces a number of erros, especially with the strong 3rd party component in 2000. So I added a check after the column to see whether round had added any "phantom" electors, caused by the fractional awards. I also examined the 3rd party count to make sure that it was indeed only one candidate that received the amount necessary for the vote, if not I awarded the vote to the next candidate with the largest plurality. Thus the next "Adjustment column", where a negative number adds an elector to the left-hand column (Gore) and a positive number adds an elector to the right-hand column.
In most of the cases, the problem was an elector too few. Here, the extra was awarded to the plurality. Florida I left alone, but given the vote I suppose it should go to Bush. Nader misses 0.5 by a slim margin, but not nearly as slim as the difference between the major candidates. Interestingly, in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington, an extra elector appears, and is taken away from the third party, which seems fair as the candidate (Nader) hadn't earned an integer vote but only a fraction. On the other hand, in some of the states he was the plurality after the other votes were accounted for so and argument could be made for him to keep these. And take one away from the other candidates.
But using the "screw the 3rd party" formula (with seems a pretty likely choice for federal election law), we arrive with Gore ahead by one electoral vote, but needing Nader to pledge several of his electors to Gore in order for him to have the needed majority to assume the Presidency. It seems fairly likely that Nader would do so in such a situation (although its also likely he'd put Gore through the ringer before letting go). I have of course, left Florida alone, however, and awarding that vote would put them back in a dead heat, with Nader's 8 electoral votes (minus Florida) more important than ever.
An alternative formulation (and one I'd guess the parties would push for) is that no candidate can get awarded a partial electoral vote without having been awarded a whole one first. In short, no freebies unless you earn the first one. This would prevent 3rd parties from getting a whole electoral vote if they've only gathered enough popular votes to earn 0.5. Example: Nader earns about .55 of an electoral vote in Minnesota based on his vote totals, but because it isn't over one, he receives nothing and the electoral vote goes to the next largest plurality (in this case, Gore.) However, in California, he earns a little over 2 electors, and is awarded them both. If he had earned 2.5 in California, it would round to 3.
Using this formula and playing Grinch with Nader yet again, Nader ends up with only 4 electoral votes, 2 for Cali, 1 for NY and 1 for Florida (which could get taken away by Bush). Even still, we have Gore at 270, which is enough for him to win the Presidency without Nader's help.
Another formulation that's been proposed is to use the county by county results and appoint electors just as the representatives they stand in for are appointed. The two electors on behalf of the Senators are assigned by the statewide vote, and the rest according to the votes of the districts they represent. However, I don't actually get paid for doing this, and even if I knew where to find the data on those returns, I do need to sleep *sometime*.
Of course, this is all academic, but as a voter I've always been uncomfortable with a system to ignores so many people's votes, and breaks down states into a red/blue divide. To me, proportional electors make much more sense, and better represent the voters of all states.
Notes:
Thanks to Charli for the original 2004 worksheet that I started with.
If you care to do your own investigation or carry my work on further, you can start here: Federal Election Results 2000
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/2000/index.html
I've also included the Excel workbooks online for you to download, here and here.
Probably there are some other errors in the 2004 calculations similar to the ones I point out in the 2000 sheet, but since it was unlikely to have been serious enough to affect the election I've let them go.
The most interesting next step I can think of: What about 1992? Ross Perot got a large number of votes for a 3rd party candidate in that election. I wonder if he could have played kingmaker in that election under a proportional represenation system. Anyone want to volunteer for a homework assignment?
OK, Why not?
I resolve to start something this year, but much more importantly I resolve to finish something. Currently in process are 2 and a half novels, three musical albums from three different projects, a couple screenplays, and yes, even a musical with Andy. I have a sickening affinity for starting things, but I need to finish one. Or even two, but I'll settle for one at this point.
I resolve to do a better job of talking to people, but honestly, it's been hard largely because I've had so little to say over the last year. 2004 sucked, in more ways than I care to elaborate. I resolve to find some way to make 2005 better, because without changes there's no reason to suspect it will be.
I resolve to finally make it to Cedar Point this year, which I've been saying for 5 years straight now without doing it.
I resolve to fight to regain my sense of humor. For a long time now, too long, it's been hard to laugh at how ridiculous it all is, even though it's been far more ridiculous than ever before. And that ability to laugh is more important than anything. I resolve not to take myself (or anyone else for that matter) too seriously. I resolve to be more absurd and friendly and ridiculous.
I resolve to become an international rockstar, become fabulously wealthy and then fundamentally change the way in which capitalism is practiced to consider more than the profit motive. It would be best to do this before summer, so I can spend some free time in the boat.
I resolve to buy some new shoes, as the Vans I bought it San Francisco for $30 are finally starting to fall apart.
I resolve to live an interesting life. I resolve that even if I fuck everything up, I'll at least have something to say when I talk to someone I haven't seen in 6 months. I resolve to be willing to fail miserably, at the expense of just being miserable. I resolve to do something, even if its wrong, and do it as well as I can manage.
You shall be my witness, and see how resolute I will be. And if I'm on the path to say all this again next year, then hit me.