Well, she pulled it off, at least for now

Democrat Christine Gregoire has been declared governor-elect of Washington State after a state-wide manual recount reversed the original decision in favor of Republican Dino Rossi. For those who haven't been following this process, here's the quick recap:

• The original tally, counted by machine, had Dino Rossi ahead by 261 votes. The slim margin was within the limit for which state law mandates a recount.


• After the first recount, Rossi's lead had been reduced to only 42 votes. He was certified as the governor-elect by the Washington Secretary of State, Sam Reed.


• State law allows a manual recount but the party who wants it has to put up the funds to pay for it. The Democrats did so and the manual recount took place.


• During the manual recount, some votes that were not counted for various reasons were included in the tally in some (but not all) counties. Some were due to errors, such as votes that were misplaced and not counted, or provisional ballots that had been rejected. Over 700 votes in King County were reevaluated and most were included in the new tally. They, more than anything else, elevated Gregoire over the top.


• Rossi has called for a second gubernatorial election, the results from which would replace the current results.

A more complete timeline can be found at the Seattle Times election timeline page. Also, if the results stand then the Democrats will be reimbursed by the state (i.e. taxpayers) for the cost of the recount (about 700,000 dollars). Their check would have been cashed only if the result did not change.

Regarding the "found" votes in King County and others, there is some question as to whether this was handled fairly. From the Seattle Times' Q&A page about the election:

Q. Since they "found" these ballots in King county, why aren't they looking for other "misplaced" ballots in the many other counties in Washington?

A. That's exactly what Republicans tried to do. But county elections officials have denied Republican requests to reconsider ballots that had been rejected during the earlier counts, because those county totals have already been certified.

The way I interpret this is that some counties included newly found votes while others, which had certified their results before the extra votes in King County came to light, did not. This could be grounds on which Rossi can contest the election:

Q.Do the current rules allow for us to reject the Governor's election results completely and do the election again?

A. Yes. State law has a provision to contest the election, which gives a judge the authority to "set aside'' an election if there is fraud or errors so great they put the true outcome of the election in doubt.

Q.Is a federal lawsuit possible?

A. Yes, it is possible. The U.S. Supreme Court decision that stopped the 2000 presidential recount in Florida is seen by attorneys on both sides as giving ammunition to the argument that disparity in how ballots were handled county-by-county creates a violation of the equal protection guarantees in the U.S. Constitution.

My prediction is that Gregoire will refuse to agree to a new election. She's the current winner and she will not voluntarily take the chance the result will be reversed again. To be honest, if the situation were reversed, I would expect Rossi to make the same decision. It's not being power-hungry, it's just playing to win. Whether or not Rossi will contest the election I can't really say. The difference in how the various counties included previously uncounted votes or didn't is certainly grounds for a contest but I'm not qualified to say whether it would have a good chance of succeeding or not.

I can't really blame Gregoire for how she handled it. Again, if the situation were reversed, I imagine Rossi and the Republicans would have called for and paid for the manual recount. Both candidates and both parties want to win and they will do whatever the law allows to do so. As of this evening, Gregoire is the winner. It's not over yet, though. Now we see whether or not Rossi contests the election. Unless, of course, Gregoire actually agrees to hold a new election in which case I'll be busy picking my jaw up off the floor.

Good Grips

For this installment of Stuff We Like, I present to you the Good Grips line of kitchen tools and utensils by OXO International. These products are very well constructed and, as the name implies, quite comfortable to hold and use. In addition to the Good Grips line, OXO has a line called OXO Touchables which I've only seen at K-mart. It appears that these are slightly less expensive products but they still appear to be well made. The grip (when there is one) is made of a similar rubbery substance but isn't as soft.

The Geekette and I discovered the Good Grips products some time back and we bought a couple of items. Since then, we've preferred to buy products in this line when available as we continue to stock our kitchen equipment. We even have a Good Grips squeegee in the shower for wiping excess water off the glass door after showering.

Not only are they comfortable to hold, they are of superior design and work quite well. Just off the top of my head I can think of the following Good Grips products we have: plastic spoon, jar opener, corncob holders, apple corer, salad spinner, tenderizing hammer, carving fork, mixing/salad bowl, scraper, and kitchen funnels. Do a search for OXO Good Grips in Google and you'll find several sites that carry their products. In our area, Fred Meyer is one store that carries a pretty complete selection.

Another good product line is from Zyliss and we have some of their stuff as well. Still, when it comes down to choosing between them, I have to give the nod to the Good Grips products.

I know who the real anachronism is...

Via Kim du Toit, here's a link to a story that informs us that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-PRK)is going to introduce a Constitutional amendment to the Senate next term that would change the way that the President is elected from the Electoral College system we use now to a direct popular vote.

"The Electoral College is an anachronism, and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st century," Feinstein said in a statement. "During the founding years of the republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states."

Kim says just about everything I would have said in response so go read his comments before coming back to read mine.

Now I can't prove this without being able to give every American the ability to read minds and then holding up Senator Feinstein before them but I do believe the following:

If John Kerry had won the election, she probably would not be doing this. She might, given what happened in 2000, but it's definitely not certain.

If John Kerry had won the election but lost the popular vote, the reverse of the situation in 2000, she most definitely would not be doing this. She may even come out and say how wise the Founding Fathers were for designing this system in the first place.

Of course, in the 2004 election it wouldn't have made a difference since Bush won a true majority of the votes. However, there's Hillary's run in 2008 to consider and the only reason Feinstein wants this amendment is because she thinks it will improve the Democratic candidate's chances in that election and the ones to follow. Given how contentious the 2004 election was, it's a pretty sure bet that a lot of people who either didn't vote, or voted for a third-party candidate, will reconsider that decision in 2008. Whether that will provide a greater boost to the Republicans or the Democrats remains to be seen. For now, Feinstein is working to make sure a repeat of the 2000 election doesn't happen again.

Of course, as Kim notes, it ain't gonna happen. For that, let us be grateful. Remember folks, the United States of America is not a Democracy. Ancient Athens was a democracy. The US is a Constitutional Republic. One reason we have the system we have is in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority, a condition which Diane Feinstein would dearly love to see come to pass.

Belated thanks

In my opinion, the two most impressive essayists of my side of the blogosphere are the inestimable Bill Whittle and Steven Den Beste. Bill is still writing but, sadly, Steven decided that he would quit his blog earlier this year. Via David Boxenhorn at Rishon Rishon comes some additional information that was provided by Steven himself in comments to a post at EuroPundits.

He told us up front that he was getting tired of all the pedantic nitpicking in email that would follow any post he made. But now we find out that he has a degenerative genetic condition that makes it difficult to write the way he used to without taking powerful stimulants. In light of this, his low tolerance for those that criticize the little stuff in his posts makes more sense. I never criticized him for his reaction to trivial criticism of his works as I felt that reaction was justified. Now I think I understand it even more.

So, on the incredibly slim chance that you ever read this, Steven, I wanted to add my voice to the growing chorus and thank you for the work you did. Your writings form the backbone of my understanding of both the broad and narrow issues in the war we are currently engaged in. You have provided a service for your country and I know I speak for many when I say that I am grateful for it. Yes, I wish you could and would write more but you have earned your rest. Now that you've laid the foundation, we can take it from here.

The status quo

So I went up to Car Toys today and had a talk with the salesguy. After looking at the options, I decided to go with door number 1: just leave it alone.

I could have gone with a custom, molded figerglass enclosure which would free up some space. But that would have cost about three or four hundred dollars and I just can't justify that kind of additional expense. If I went with a single driver, I risk actually having something that doesn't have quite enough oomph, especially given that it's in the trunk instead of the passenger cabin and has to make it through layers of stuff.

The salesguy is going to order up a couple of grills to cover the drivers so that I won't have to worry about stuff smashing into the cones and damaging them. And, if I know that I'm going to need maximum space, I can always take the box out and leave it at home.

Generalizations of your opponents

I was looking at my (very few) refers and saw that one had come from a comment I left to a post by Joe Kelley in his blog, The Sake of Argument. The post addressed speculation on how meny people on either side were motivated to vote by the antics of Michael Moore. In my comment I wrote:

While it was not a necessary nor sufficient condition for me to cast my vote for Bush, the fact that people like Moore, Striesand, Baldwin, and all the other moonbats were pulling for Kerry certainly made my decision easier. I would have voted that way anyway but it's just so much sweeter to watch them all wallow in denial and despair over the fact that over half the voters disagreed with them. How the cognitive dissonance they are all experiencing is manifesting itself is fascinating to watch.

Nothing new here for anyone who has been reading my posts since the election. The reason I'm writing this, however, is actually brought up by the next comment which states, in part:

Your premise is that the election was a matter of haters on both sides. Sorry, but I don't buy it. I talked to people, went out and voted, and said hi to people coming into the polling place to vote. There was no atmosphere of hatred. Same goes for people seen on TV.

Some were fired up, sure. There was resolve, there was vehemence, but I just did not see or hear the hatred. That's not to say there weren't any hate-driven people opposed to Bush. It's just that they were not and are not the majority, not anywhere near typical of, those opposed to Bush.

The commenter is right about that. While there really are people who hate Bush with religious fervor, they are only a minority of those that voted for Kerry or another candidate. However, they are a very vocal minority and a big problem, as I see it, is that they seem to exert disproportionate influence on the Democratic Party. In particular, we have certain celebrities such as Moore et al. who are under the impression, justified or not, that their opinions are somehow worth more than those of others such as your humble blogger. In my opinion, this engendered a certain amount of backlash and, while it probably didn't change many people's votes from Kerry to Bush, if any, it certainly provided an extra incentive for those inclined to vote for Bush to get up and actually do so. In my case, it made it somewhat easier to vote for the man despite what I perceive to be his shortcomings. The subsequent reactions from these people likewise serve to make me feel better about my choice. When people who are this out of touch with reality are so upset about how the election went down, it reinforces my belief that I made the best choice from among what was available.

That's better

After talking with the guy at Car Toys about the subwoofer, I discovered a couple of things:

• They generally turn the gain control on a subwoofer amp all the way up when they install it because most people want as much boom as they can get. I was able to turn that control down to about half and I can now turn up the subwoofer output on the deck to a reasonable level without rattling the car apart.


• The amplifier is rated for an impedance of 2 ohms but it will work just fine with a speaker of higher impedance. Impedance is basically the same as electrical resistance but it applies to systems where the current direction alternates. Capacitors and coils have varying impedance depending on the frequency, and that's why they are used for frequency filters and crossover circuits. Right now I have two 4-ohm drivers in the subwoofer box that are connected in a parallel circuit. The total impedance of the system is therefore 2 ohms (see below). If I use a single 4-ohm driver, the amplifier will run cooler and, if I understand correctly, send half the power out as it does now for a given volume level.

I'm still going to go up there next week and discuss the possibility of getting a smaller speaker enclosure with either a single driver, or two smaller drivers. But the worst-case scenario is now that I keep what I have and, now that I've adjusted it, it sounds good. I just won't have the trunk space I would like.

To calculate the resistance/impedance of a parallel circuit, take the reciprocals of the resistance/impedance of each component, add them together, and then take the reciprocal of the total. So, in the case of my speaker box with two drivers, each one is 4 ohms. The sum of the reciprocals is 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2. The reciprocal of the sum is then 2. If I added an 8-ohm driver, the sum of the reciprocals would be 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 5/8. The total impedance would then be 8/5 ohms or 1 3/5.

Too much of a good thing

Yesterday I took the day off since I need to burn off some vacation time before the end of the year. I can only carry a year's worth over to the next year and, as I haven't taken many vacation days this year, I'm at risk of losing some time if I don't use it up. Naturally, I used the day to spend money.

When I bought my current car over a year ago, one of the first things I did was replace the stock stereo with a better one. The new kit included a CD-deck that can play MP3 and WMA files on CD's I've burned as well as regular CD's, four good speakers (one in each door), and a 200 watt amplifier to power the speakers. The deck I bought has a separate output for a subwoofer and it was always my intention of adding one to the setup.

Well, that's what I did yesterday. I went on up to the local Car Toys store, from which I had purchased the original stereo kit (and an alarm, and a set of foglamps), and had them set me up.

Why add a subwoofer? Well, the speakers in the car are 6 inches in diameter for the front pair and 5 inches for the rear. They're good speakers and they sound great but their size limits how well they reproduce bass frequencies. They just can't move enough air. A subwoofer does two things. First, it produces those lower frequencies the regular speakers just can't put out. Second, since those lower frequencies aren't going through the amplifier and to the speakers anymore, it frees up the power that was wasted on failing to reproduce them and lets the amp use it for the frequencies they can reproduce. The subwoofer has its own separate amplifier designed for that role.

The rig I bought consists of a 310 watt amplifier and a sealed box containing two 10 inch diameter subwoofer drivers. It's not uncommon for the subwoofer amplifier to be more powerful than the amp that powers the speakers. It sounds great. In fact -- and here's why I titled this post as I did -- it's too much. In order for the subwoofer not to overwhelm the rest of the system, I have to crank it down quite a bit. The control on the deck that sets the subwoofer's relative volume goes from something like -6 to 6 with zero in the middle. I need to run it at -3 or -4 or else it's too loud. If I want, I can really crank it up and rattle windows as I drive by but that's not what I want, and it sounds crappy. Instead I want clean, tight bass to round out the lower-end and fill out the sound.

Knowing what I know now, having listened to it for a while, I should have gone with a setup with a lower-power amplifier and a single driver, or two smaller drivers. Not to mention that the speaker enclosure takes up some room in the trunk. This is a working car; I use it to haul groceries home from the store and such so more room is better. I'm going to call them up tomorrow and see if maybe I can "trade down" to something a bit more sedate. I called today but neither of the guys who worked with me yesterday are in today; they'll be back tomorrow. I'll write about what happens in a later post.

Should we all dig moats around our homes?

Wretchard over at Belmont Club is far more polite about this than I'm going to be. As a follow-up to Tuesday's post about gun control in Britain comes this column by Dr. Ian Stephen published in The Scotsman which "advises" homeowners on what to do if faced by an intruder. It is difficult to express just how jaw-droppingly pathetic the state of affairs in Britain is if this is the homeowner's only recourse. But I'm gonna try anyway.

From a police perspective, the advice to potential victims of burglaries is unequivocal and clear-cut and you should never "have a go", so to speak, but for the victims of crime this is a very difficult thing to put into practice, especially when your natural instincts are to defend yourself, your family and your own property - the very pillars of your life that are being violated and potentially destroyed by criminals. (emphasis mine -RR)

Gee, do you think that this coule be a natural instinct for a reason? Like maybe it's a behavior that makes it more likely that you'll survive to procreate? Of course, anything as base as a natural instict is obviously bad in a socialist utopia. We must all suppress our insticts to the benevolent will of The Government. It will protect us and provide for all our needs. Except, of course, that it CAN'T.

As a law-abiding individual confronted by an intruder in your home you face a catch-22. If you attack the burglar, or react in an "over the top" manner, as was recently illustrated in the case of Tony Martin who shot intruders in his Norfolk farmhouse, you will inevitably end up on the receiving end of a prison sentence that will far outstrip that imposed on the intruder in your own home. This situation has resulted in a lack of belief in the law among the public or rather a belief that the law isn’t exactly on your side when your home is broken into.

That's not a belief, that's a certainty. What we have here is legally mandated submission to someone who is committing a crime, potentially violent, against you and your property. It boggles the mind that there are people who actually believe this is the right way to go, not just in Britain but in the US as well.

To this end it is perhaps important not to dwell on the situation involving Mr Martin because, regardless of the appeal procedure he successfully went through to secure his freedom, in many ways the law still points to his particular attack on the intruders who entered his home as a pre-meditated assault. He had previously been the victim of a number of burglaries within his home and as a result of this he was effectively prepared for further intrusion and reacted as such when his farmhouse was broken into again.

I'm glad that he's not in prison but he shouldn't have been tried in the first place. His home had been burgled repeatedly, proving beyond any doubt that the police were acting as precisely zero deterrent to the criminals. So he decides to do something about it himself, perhaps remembering what it was like to be a Brit back in the days when the law actually protected people's rights. And when the practically inevitable happens and his home is invaded again, he takes action for which he is accused of and tried for the crime of "premeditated assault." Bullshit! Premeditated assault is when you initiate violence against someone else after having planned on doing so beforehand. What he did was self-defense, pure and simple. He reacted to the initiation of a crime against him. He didn't start it, but he did finish it.

Now we come to the actions that Dr. Stephen says homeowners should take when someone breaks into their home while they are there:

When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn’t possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder’s awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means. People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as "Please don’t hurt me".

This sounds awfully familiar. Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah! Right here. I love how he tries to make this "advice" more palatable to those Brits with spines by saying that this behavior "allows the victim to take charge of the situation...." One would have to be Reed Richards (or Plastic Man or Elasti-Girl) to stretch far enough for that one without hurting oneself.

Sometimes the perpetrator of a burglary is even more terrified than the victim and in many cases when things go wrong it is the perpetrator of the crime who panics. Although they sometimes go equipped with weapons, in most cases they probably don’t intend to use them but in the heat of the moment, and the fear of either getting caught or attacked themselves, they use them. They don’t expect the person they are trying to hold up to retaliate or react. Mostly the knife is there simply for intimidation rather than intent to use it and they finish up killing somebody by accident rather than design. (emphasis mine -RR)

It doesn't matter. I can't possibly know for sure whether he's terrified or stone-cold. I have to assume the worst-case scenario. If I assume the best-case and I'm wrong, well that's it for me. The sentence in bold is the real kicker. Of course they don't expect it, because they know the LAW prohibits it! And I don't care whether or not he intends to use the knife. The fact that he brought it with him tells me that he has considered the possibility that he'd end up using it but brought it anyway.

This, of course, does not excuse their actions,...

Perhaps the only thing the good Doctor gets right in the whole article...

...but it is certainly worth taking on-board when you consider confronting an intruder. While saying this, in my own experience counselling victims of crime in recent years, there has also recently been a marked increase in the use or the threatened use of dangerous weapons in burglaries and common assaults. This, in itself, is a deeply worrying trend and, although not entirely excusing over-retaliation from homeowners, creates an understandable degree of sympathy for members of the public who lash out at intruders in their home. In truth it is an incredibly difficult situation to assess. (emphasis mine -RR)

Gee, the beginning of that marked increase wouldn't happen to coincide with another event, oh such as the prohibition of private handgun ownership? Not to mention the policy of punishing homeowners who defend their homes, regardless of the tool used, which is the whole reason this article even exists. And it's not that difficult at all. Some people actively handle a threat when it confronts them and naturally other people are going to sympathise with them. This guy is trying to spin the favorable attitude toward people who actively defend themselves as a bad thing so it's all the more easy to stamp that attitude out.

Dr. Stephen then starts playing psychologist and talks about how being the victim of a home invasion can lead to psychological problems, post-traumatic stress disorder, and so on. He finishes up with:

The trauma can be dealt with in a number of ways with professional help, counselling to develop effective coping strategies and taking time off from stressful professional activities. People who fail to seek help often develop further psychological problems. Men especially are not good at accepting support, but some simple counselling immediately after an attack can substantially reduce the risk of long-term psychological problems.

You know what would be just as effective? How about letting homeowners take the responsibility for their own safety, since the government certainly isn't protecting them. Uh-uh. Instead we get, "Oh it's okay. You can always undergo therapy to handle the psychological problems." Of course, in a country that has socialized medicine, it's just another "service" the government provides "for free." And that assumes you survive your ordeal, unlike John Monckton who didn't even get the chance to put this "advice" into practice before he was murdered.

I'm simply disgusted. There's a name for the state someone is in when they are completely subordinate to the will of another who can then take whatever he wants and do whatever he wants. It is the state that Dr. Stephen is saying that people faced with criminal intruders in their homes should voluntarily enter.

That state is slavery.

Update: Someone on Fark posted the link to this article. The category tag he used, "asinine," is totally appropriate. The commenters appear to be in broad agreement with it as well.

That's reality pounding on your head, Britain

Via Rob at Gut Rumbles comes a link to a Mark Steyn article that's well worth reading.

There isn't much that can be said about this article that it doesn't already say...

One of the key measures of a society's health is how easily you can insulate yourself from its underclass. In America, unless one resides in a very small number of problematic inner-city quarters or wishes to make a career in the drug trade, one will live a life blessedly untouched by crime. In Britain, alas, it's the peculiar genius of Home Office policy to have turned the entire country into one big, rundown, inner-city, no-go slum estate, extending from prosperous suburbs to leafy villages, even unto Upper Cheyne Row.

...but I'm gonna say something anyway.

When are they going to realize that disarming the law-abiding only makes them bigger targets for the criminals?

In countless movies, in the genre usually referred to as "post-apocalyptic," we are presented with a ravaged world where marauding bandits roam the country, preying on the defenseless. Civilization has collapsed and the rule of law has been swept away, along with any pretense of government. As the name implies, these worlds are usually the result of some sort of massive global catastrophe such as full-blown nuclear war, an asteroid impact, a genetically engineered super-plague, or similar. Yet, if thise keeps up, I can see this as the fate of much of Britain (and Australia as well with its disarmament laws). The traditional first form of deterrence against crime, the victim who can defend him- or herself effectively, has been outlawed. If the situation continues on its current trend, it won't be much longer before we have those bands of marauders roaming across the British countryside, preying on the defenseless and returning to their hidden bases before the ineffective police response arrives. After all, can the future be anything but bleak in a country about which the following can be said?

These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn't been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." There speaks the modern British crime victim.

The British backbone was forged in steel during two world wars, the civilians' no less than the military's. And although the British military continues to prove it's mettle (or is that metal?) in Iraq alongside US forces, the disarmament laws back home have only served to replace the spines of law-abiding citizens with ones of flaccid jelly. I hope that someday soon Great Britain, and Australia as well, come to their senses and allow the law-abiding citizenry the tools with which to defend themselves. It would be a tragedy if the world of the Road Warrior came about not with a bang but with a whimper.

Announcing a new feature

Since the election is over and political issues, while still relevant, are not generating as much content on this blog, I've decided to introduce a new feature which will appear on this page intermittently. I'm going to review household products that the Geekette and I have found to be particularly useful and/or of high quality.

First up: The Rubbermaid Stainshield plastic containers. Their main claim to fame is that they are very resistant to staining, especially by tomato-based foods like spaghetti sauce. And they are.

I often take my lunch to work and my lunch often consists of a can of soup of some kind. I recently bought a Stainshield bowl in which to heat my soup. Today I brought in a can of mini-ravioli and nuked it. As advertised, it cleaned right up and looks as clean and clear as the day I bought it. Previously, I had a couple of cheap Ziploc plastic bowls that I used for this purpose. After only a couple uses, the plastic was stained and had bubbled up in a ring around the bowl at the soup's surface level. I've tossed them (they're advertised as being practically disposable anyway) and the new bowl has taken their place.

These containers are somewhat more expensive, but I expect that mine will last considerably longer than a cheaper product and will at least make up for the extra cost. If you are looking for plastic containers that hold up well to reheating in the microwave, especially when it comes to tomato-based sauces and foods, the Rubbermaid Stainshield containers are recommended.

The master of pollution

You've probably heard this before but, in case you haven't, what's currently the biggest source of pollution in the State of Washington?

It's our very own, home grown, Mount St. Helens:

Since the volcano began erupting in early October, it has been pumping out 50 to 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.

Those emissions are so high that if the volcano were a new factory, it probably couldn't get a permit, Clint Bowman, an atmospheric physicist for the Washington Department of Ecology, told The Seattle Times.

Of course, it's all really the fault of Bush, the Republicans, and their big-business cronies. I propose renaming the mountain to Mount St. Halliburton.

Seriously, though, I do acknowledge that mankind is capable of seriously damaging the environment and I'm all for reducing pollution where feasible. But I'm not for crippling our economy to reach past the point of diminishing returns. Just think of how much crap was spewed into the air by Mount St. Helens when it blew its top on May 18, 1980 but the local environment and ecology handled it just fine.

Talk about close

Although the Presidential election was not in dispute, one election that wasn't resolved quickly is for the Governor of Washington State. The final result of the original count had Republican Dino Rossi leading his opponent, Democrat Christine Gregoire, by 261 votes out of a total of 2.8 million. This is well within the range that triggers an automatic recount and one was conducted by machine.

The final result of the recount has Dino Rossi ahead by a mere 42 votes. That's a difference of only 0.0015 percent. Washington's Secretary of State Sam Reed is going to certify the election results today (and may already have done so by now). It is not surprising that Gregoire and her supporters are not going to concede with the results so fantastically close.

According to Washington State election rules, either party can order a recount, either by machine or manual, after the Secretary of State certifies the results. The big catch is that they have to pay for it. According to an article in the Seattle Times:

Democrats would prefer to order a complete hand recount, but the party may not be able to raise $1 million by Friday, [Washington State Democratic party spokeswoman Kirsten] Brost said. A labor-intensive manual record costs 25 cents per ballot, or about $700,000 for a statewide tally.

Coupled with legal bills and party staff costs, that could push the total cost to more than $1 million, and both the Gregoire campaign and the state party are running on fumes, Brost said.

However, there is an alternate strategy:

The party may decide to order a recount for King County or counties where they've spotted possible "anomalies," said state Chairman Paul Berendt.

(Cynical translation: "counties where we have the best chance of gaining votes.")

The catch here is that, should the partial recount put Gregoire in the lead, the state would then conduct a manual recount of all votes statewide at public expense.

Something else to note is this bit from the Washington Secretary of State's website:

Q: What is a recount?

A recount is the process where the counties simply re-tabulate all the ballots that were counted in the original count.

In the original count, final determinations are made by the county canvassing boards on what votes will be counted.

The recount does not allow a review of decisions by the county canvassing boards of what constitutes a vote.

Thus, the same ballots counted in the original count will simply be re-tabulated.

In other words, any statements from either party that they will "make sure every vote is counted" have no meaning as any votes that were not counted the first time for any reason will never be counted in any recount.

The Republicans are responding to the challenge:

Republicans, meanwhile, will respond with their own recount request, while stepping up the heat on Gregoire to concede, said Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane.

"We'll be prepared for them, whatever strategy they decide to go with," Lane said.

Historically, no recount has ever led to a change in the final result. However, I would bet that no gubernatorial election in Washington State has ever been this close in terms of percentage. In any event, if the Democrats can pony up the cash, and they probably will, it ain't over yet. I could call for Gregoire to concede but, to tell you the truth, with the results this mind-numbingly close, I would probably not do so were I in her shoes. We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out. My fingers are crossed.

The love just keeps a comin'

Via Ally at Who Moved My Truth comes a link to this post at The Hatemonger's Quarterly which address this subtle and nuanced exposition directed at people, such as Yours Truly, who voted for Bush in the recent election.

Therefore, for my own edification, I present the following fisking.

First of all, after accusing Kerry of betraying his supporters by conceding when he knew he wasn't going to win, which was actually an act of real class, the author of this piece, a Mr. Clif Garboden had this to say:

A lot of us effete Easterners want to know: what the fuck is wrong with you?! You voted against your self-interest at every turn (you dumb-asses in South Dakota deserve special credit for voting out one of the most powerful Democrats in the Senate) and re-elected an ignorant cowboy who can't be trusted to remember a lunch order, never mind run a country. What in the name of God ...?! Wait, it was in the name of God, wasn't it? Rendered weak and ignorant by a spoon-fed climate of fear, you slack-jawed inbred flatlanders have sought refuge in the traditional twin towers of mindlessness - jingoistic patriotism and fundamentalist religion. God's on your side. Like hell. Jesus loves us, dammit.

I love how Bush is on one hand an "ignorant cowboy" and, on the other, is a diabolical genius who rivals Hitler in his malevolence and ability to control the teeming, mindless masses. And if a belief that the United States of America is the greatest country that has ever existed and is the foremost hope for freedom and prosperity in this world is jingoistic patriotism, count me in! As for fundamentalist religion, at least in my case that really wasn't a factor at all in my decision. I can't speak for everybody who voted for Bush; I'm sure it was a factor for some people. I will say, however, that the fervor with which many liberals, Democrats, socialists, etc. believe that they are right, often in the face of direct contradictory evidence is just as great as that of those fundamentalists they decry so vehemently. Except their god is not God, it is the State. And whereas those who believe in God do not believe they should have his job, those who believe in the primacy of the State also tend to believe they should be the ones running the State. For the good of all, of course.

After going on to bash Christians for a few more paragraphs, even going as far as to equate them with Al Qaeda, he writes:

What else is bothering you self-destructive morons? What other overwhelmingly urgent issue caused you to vote yourselves into the retirement poorhouse and sacrifice the four freedoms? Gay marriage? Dig it. Right at this moment in your little picturesque insular East Silage-for-Brains, USA, there are gay and lesbian couples walking around - possibly even copulating. Really. It's been going on around you all your lives, and you've never been hurt by it. Now, if these same couples were "married" in any legal sense, they'd still walk and copulate as usual and it still wouldn't make any difference to you. You don't like or understand homosexuality? Fine. Nobody's asking your permission. But it's not your problem. And hiding it won't make it go away. Nor will persecuting gays change anybody's sexual preference. So, to put it aptly, go fuck yourselves and leave other people alone.

First of all, we see the belief that government is the answer to all problems and is that from which all good things flow. The retirement poorhouse, eh? Well, only those of us who are relying on the government (i.e. taxpayers) to fund our retirement instead of investing for it ourselves (as Yours Truly has done ever since he got his first job after college) are in danger of it and I posit that any plan which reduces government control over our retirement funds is a good one. Of course, in Clif's world, we're all just ignorant rubes and need the government, run by people like him of course, to make all our decisions for us or else we'll just screw it up.

As for gay marriage, it has been stated many times here and elsewhere that it's not hatred of gays that drove the 11 states to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's the fear that liberal activist judges will impose gay marriage on the country by judicial fiat. Even Kerry himself said he does not support gay marriage. But, then, this is a subtle and nuanced argument and we inbred pukes are incapable of such so it really must be that we all hate fags and want to string them up by the busload. Yeah, right.

For the record, I count several gays, bisexuals, and lesbians among my friends and I opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment and any state constitutional amendments for reasons I will detail in a forthcoming essay. And, as I just found out, the supposedly conservative Supreme Court, you know the one that "selected" Bush in 2000, has just rejected the challenge to the Massachusetts state Supreme Court's decision allowing gay marriage. Moving on...

Anything else? Education deform ... er reform.... Leaders like G.W. and (yes, it's a fair comparison) Hitler rise to power by exploiting the support of the weak and stupid, so it's in their interest to encourage weakness and stupidity. That's where universal education becomes a threat. Education encourages creative thought. Creative thought empowers people. Fascists hate creative thought. So it's incredibly convenient for the GOP that you folks actually want your kids to be dumb. Which is why the No Child Left Behind initiative you endorse has, in fact, done nothing! Happy? Perhaps ignorance really is bliss.

Actually, weakness and stupidity tend to result in people depending on others. And, who better to provide what they need than the government, right Clif? Education not only encourages creative thought, it also encourages self-reliance, something big-government liberals fear because it means people just might not want to have government provide everything for them, or for anyone else either. Why do you think so many conservatives are turning to alternate forms of education for their children, such as home-schooling? Why do so many wealthy Democrats send their kids to private schools? If you have kids, Clif, where do they go to school?

Clif then cements his GFW status with this:

Gun control? We said "control," not confiscation. And there are high-powered automatic weapons most civilians really do not need. Even moose tend to come at you one at a time. "But shooting's fun!" you argue. "It's a sport." Breaking windows and driving 100 miles an hour are fun, but they're legally controlled activities. "But," you object, "how do I defend my family when the nigras and the Jews and the Communists from Harvard come on my property?" Right. Lock the gate; everybody covets your Tupperware and your chard. We'll be right over.

Breaking windows and driving 100 miles an hour are, respectively, destruction of private property and reckless endangerment. Responsible gun ownership is neither. Yes, shooting is fun, and yes, it's a sport, and no, that's not what the Second Amendment is about at all. And if nobody wants to steal anybody's stuff, then why does it actually happen? Besides, theft is not the only reason that people invade other people's homes. It's not the only reason that people assault other people, regardless of where it happens. Ultimately, though, we need to be armed to protect ourselves from the day when people like Clif gain power and decide that us mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging dunderheads are really too stupid for our own good, and everyone else's, and they send the jackbooted thugs to round us all up and put us in "reeducation camps."

Remember folks, Hitler was a socialist.

Does it really bother you cornpone chuckleheads that "we" think you're under-educated, culturally limited, and ignorant? Well, how about proving us wrong? For starters, get this straight: there were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not attack the World Trade Center; lots of children (including many of yours) are left behind every day; the greenhouse effect is for real; and the Dixie Chicks were right. Pin down a few of those basics and then perhaps we'll talk.

I guess he thinks a BS in Math/Computer Science is under-educated. Yes, there were and are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, along with idle production capability that could have been brought online within a short time. The administration has never said Iraqis attacked the World Trade Center, though Saddam had connections with those who did. Children are left behind because the big-government education system doesn't work. The greenhouse effect may be real enough, but mankind's contribution to it is still in doubt. The point is not whether or not the Dixie Chicks were right or wrong (after all, Natalie Maines was expressing a subjective opinion), but how they reacted to radio stations exercising their right to play what they want, and people exercising their right not to buy the Chicks' albums and see their concerts. It wasn't censorship, it was free speech. Remember, free speech doesn't mean it's free from consequences.

In its own well-intentioned way, liberalism is, when you think about it, almost as big a problem as fundamentalism is. See, as much as I disagree with you and am disgusted by the shallow and pathetic pawns you've become, I respect your potential. That's why liberal Democrats can't bring themselves to do what the Republicans do so well - cynically lie to you for selfish gain. (Do you really think Kerry would have banned the Bible?) We nice people actually expected reasoned arguments, logic, and incontrovertible evidence to convince you that Kerry was the better candidate. Turns out that the GOP's double whammy of fear and loathing is a more powerful vote-getting tool.

Too bad you couldn't actually provide any such arguments. And this article is demonstrating just how nice you are. Just like the vandalism of Bush/Cheney signs and other general thuggery aimed at Bush supporters did. And since you can't refute the arguments with valid arguments of your own, then they must have been lies, right? Fear and loathing, eh? What I feared was a socialist in the White House and I voted accordingly.

The Republicans don't care about you; they just wanted your vote so they can stay in power and make their oil-and-blood-soaked cronies even richer. They're going to send your job overseas and destroy Social Security. In the name of catching terrorists, they're going to make sure you don't read any interesting books or travel without permission. They're going to toss you a minuscule tax cut in exchange for under-funding public education and social services, so there will be more poor people around to bother you. Perhaps you will become one of them.

Why does any party want my vote? I mean, duh! As for making cronies richer, Halliburton is realizing only a small profit (something like 4 percent as I recall) from their Iraq operations. And as for allegations of misconduct on their part, they're being investigated and not covered up. Outsourcing is a minor cause of job loss and this argument doesn't take into account job insourcing. Nor does it address the reason for outsourcing which is that it's better for a company's bottom line. That's the main reason for any company's actions. Make the US a better business environment so that US businesses can be more competitive (such as, oh, lowering taxes?) and you'll see outsourcing drop. As for Social Security, it's the biggest Ponzi scheme that has ever existed in the history of this planet. People are tossed into federal prison for doing exactly what Social Security does. Perhaps it should be destroyed, and replaced with a system of personal control of retirement accounts that allows the individual to determine what to do with his or her money. Investing that money, even in stable investments with lower return, would significantly boost the economy. And if you no longer allow people to rely on the government teat, maybe they'll start taking responsibility for themselves and get to work. Obviously that's not going to apply to everyone who is poor (such as those who are mentally ill or physically incapable), and we as a compassionate society should still take care of them. But for those that are capable, it's better to give them a hand up instead of a handout. Cliché yes, but it's cliché because it's true.

They're going to shower the pharmaceutical companies with excess profits while denying you life-saving medical attention. They're going to let corporate conglomerates fill the air you breathe with carcinogens while they discourage clean-energy research. They're going to insist the ozone layer's okay until y'all bake your little red asses off. They're going to alienate the rest of the Western world and any portion of the Eastern world that isn't willing to supply Wal-Mart with cheap labor. They're going to throw more Saddam-esque bogeymen in your face while tacitly supporting Saudi terrorists and ignoring nuclear-armed Korean dictators. They're going to rig the system so that even you law-abiding yahoos won't be able to get a fair trial. And worst of all, they're going to dehumanize your children and send them off to kill or be killed in the name of oil profits.

Pharmaceutical companies are business, like any other, and they are in business to make profits for their shareholders and provide paychecks for their employees. As for denying medical attention, where is that happening? Not here, but certainly in utopias of socialized medicine like Great Britain, France, and Canada. And the Bush administration is funding research into cleaner energy sources. Remember, folks, the wealthier a society is, the cleaner it is. You want to see pollution, look no further than emerging industrial nations in Africa and Eastern Europe. As for Saudi Arabia and North Korea, they are not by any means being ignored. But what worked in Iraq won't necessarily work in those countries and there are other options. North Korea, especially, is a reason I voted the way I did. Clif probably supported Kerry's desire to have bilateral talks with NK, which would almost certainly have ended with the US trying to buy NK off again, just like Clinton did. And look where that got us. What good is it to bargain with a dictator when he has no intention of keeping his side of the agreement? Keeping the other countries, China, Japan, South Korea, etc. involved in the process, especially when they are closer geographically and thus are more directly impacted, is a good idea. But, then of course multi-lateralism is only good when a Democrat is doing it, right Clif? The last sentence of that paragraph has already been addressed so often, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure it out.

And you bought into it all because you're afraid. And you're afraid because they scared you. And it was all so unnecessary. You don't have to be frightened. You (okay, most of you) aren't really stupid or helpless. I know you at your worst and best. I grew up with you; I shared outdoor plumbing with you; I complimented the dead deer hanging on your front porches. You can open your minds and accept or reject things on their merits instead of on their reputations in small-minded circles. You can think for yourselves.

Of course they scared me. "They" being the Democrats and their liberal, socialist, and communist supporters. Of course I can think for myself. And I did so. And I came to a different conclusion than you did. Can you actually accept the possibility that most of us did?

And some day, you might figure that out. Meanwhile, you deserve what we all got thanks to you, you bastards.

Here is where he is right. We do deserve what we'll get. It has been ever thus. I will continue to point out where I think the administration has screwed up, and where they've done a good job. I expect the same from my opponents.

Today's installment of "I must be doing something right."

In response to my post about the Marine who shot the wounded terrorist, a fellow by the name of Ryan Somma had this to say:

I dunno, maybe it's the fact that I'm an American, and I'm above this survivalist, anti-democracy, anti-freedom bullshit that your spouting that I have a problem with the idea of an AMERICAN soldier shooting a prisoner of war in the back of the head. Maybe you don't understand what being civilized is, but it it DOES have something to do with being better than the enemy. I'm sorry that you think that being as bad as Al-Quedea is the way to go, but that just means you are no better than the muslim-extremist sickos plaguing us presently.

Please drop dead or kill yourself, for the good of civilization.

Thank you,

Ryan Somma

First of all, unlike other commenters in the past who have had, shall we say, not-so-nice things to say to me, Mr. Somma provides his full name and a link to his website. He is a man who is not afraid to acknowledge his words and I respect him for that. I took a look at his site and it's a blog of simple, yet elegant design. He mostly provides links to interesting items with a brief comment. And he links to the website of one of my very favorite authors, David Brin, so he can't be all bad.

As to the points he made in his comment, I'd like to address them. First of all, I'm not sure how he is able to perceive my writings as "survivalist, anti-democracy, anti-freedom bullshit." Bullshit it may be, I'm certainly not perfect and my writing ability pales before the likes of James Lileks and Mike Hendrix, but I certainly do not ascribe to a "survivalist" mentality (I live in a very nice suburb of Seattle, for example and not some cabin out in the woods) and you'll be hard pressed to find a more staunch supporter of democracy and freedom than Yours Truly. After all, that's one of the main reasons I support the campaign in Iraq. I'm hopeful that sowing the seeds of democracy and freedom in the Middle East will bring about the kind of change that leads them to take responsibility for their own failure rather than using the West as a convenient scapegoat, make the changes necessary to overcome the failings of their culture (i.e. religious fanaticism, subjugation of women, etc.), and pull themselves out of the eighth century and into the twenty-first. I don't know how successful it will be, but we simply coudn't continue to appease the terrorists or treat terror as a law-enforcement problem in an attempt to maintain the status quo, a situation that had become unacceptable.

As for his comments about the shooting itself, I agree that it's a disturbing situation. The point I was trying to make is that it's entirely understandable under the circumstances for that Marine to have acted the way he did. He didn't know what had gone on there previously and, as far as he knew, it was certainly possible that the wounded man was preparing to detonate an explosive device or pull out a gun and open fire. He did what he thought was necessary to protect himself and his squadmates. It was not his desire to kill an unarmed man in cold blood. As noted, the nearby wounded man was not shot as he was clearly still alive and not feigning death, and was also clearly surrendering instead of trying to take some of our troops with him.

As far as being better than the enemy, this situation actually emphasizes the point that our troops are better than the ones they are fighting against. The very fact that this incident is an aberration, which is part of the reason it is getting so much attention, is proof of that. Not even in the most fevered imagination of the most rabid anti-war activist can our troops commit the kinds of atrocities that the enemy in Fallujah is clearly guilty of given the evidence that has been discovered. The murder of Margaret Hassan which I cited in my earlier post is a quintessential example.

I fully understand what it means to be civilized. However, we must keep in mind that we are asking our troops to perform actions that are fundamentally uncivilized without letting those actions destroy their civility. It's tough to do, and some soldiers aren't completely successful. But our military as a whole does it as well as, if not better than, any other military that has existed throughout the entirety of mankind's history. And when something like this incident, or what happened at Abu Ghraib, occurs, the military doesn't sweep it under the rug but investigates it thoroughly in order to ensure as much as possible that it doesn't happen again. And that as much as anything separates our military from those they are facing and is proof of just how civilized our society is.

I do not for one Planck time interval believe that "being as bad as Al-Quedea(sic) is the way to go." If anything deserves the label of Evil Personified, it is Al-Qaeda and the horrors that they have perpetrated in the name of their twisted variant of Islam. I categorically reject any comparisin between myself and them as well as any claim that our troops in any way are as bad as our enemy.

Finally, I'm sorry to disappoint you Ryan but I intend to live a long, rich life in freedom and prosperity and I will continue to write about my views. If you don't agree with them, then next time respond with a well-reasoned argument instead of a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations and peurile demands that I end my life. I could have simply ripped you a new one and flung a bunch of invective in your direction but I opted instead to respond to your flame with thoughtful discourse. I guess it just goes to show just who the tolerant one is between the two of us.

Dan Rather to step down

According to this article at MSNBC, Dan Rather will step down as anchor of the "CBS Evening News" next March. A short way down the article it says:

He made no mention of the National Guard story in announcing the change, saying he had agreed with CBS executives last summer to leave sometime after the Nov. 2 election. But he was forced to fight for his professional life after anchoring a September “60 Minutes Wednesday” story about Bush’s service that turned out to be based on allegedly forged documents.

Yeah, right. "Allegedly forged" nothing. They were outright fabrications, as was the entire story, and Rather did nothing less than lie to the American people. When he was called on it, instead of evaluating the situation and admitting the story was based on bogus evidence, he showed his true partisanship and bias and tried to peddle the line that the story was true even though the evidence "may be" false. What a crock. The fact that he wasn't demoted or fired immediately by CBS shows that their leadership is just as biased as he is.

I'm also taking the bit about him agreeing to leave as early as last summer with a grain of salt. Despite their bias, CBS may still be considering that he's now a liability and may have "encouraged" him to step down soon. This allows them to move him away from center stage while not betraying thier bias by smacking him down.

In addition, contrast the MSNBC article with this article at Fox News. They say pretty much the same thing, and the byline in both is the Associated Press, but there are differences at the beginning. For example, the first paragraph of the MSNBC article is:

Dan Rather, whose nearly 24-year tenure as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” was clouded by a recent questionable report on President Bush’s National Guard service, said Tuesday he will step down in March.

The first paragraph of the Fox News article is:

Dan Rather, embattled anchor of the "CBS Evening News," announced Tuesday that he will step down in March, on the 24th anniversary of taking over the job from Walter Cronkite.

The Fox article has these two paragraphs in the following order, while the MSNBC article has them in the reverse order and the second one is somewhat different:

He made no mention of the National Guard story in announcing the change, saying he had agreed with CBS executives last summer that after the Nov. 2 election would be the right time to leave.

"I have always been and remain a 'hard news' investigative reporter at heart," he said. "I now look forward to pouring my heart into that kind of reporting full time."

The impression I get is that they both used the AP report as the basis of their respective articles (A practice that, if I remember correctly, is common) but tailored them a bit to put a subtle bit of spin on it. MSNBC's soft-pedals a bit more than Fox's.

Update: Yeah, I know it's a stretch to think that Rather is not necessarily stepping down of his own volition. Spoons has some comments to that effect. However, I maintain that there is a non-zero probability, albeit close to zero, that this is being done not just because Rather doesn't want the job anymore but also because wants to get a new face in that spot in an attempt to restore or maintain their credibility and keep their biases somewhat hidden. At the very least, this is a convenient opportunity for them to do so.

Compare and contrast

On the one hand we have a Marine who shot a wounded terrorist in a mosque. Things to note:

• A day or so earlier, this Marine's friend was killed when the bomb used to booby-trap a supposedly dead terrorist's body exploded.


• This terrorist was previously engaged in combat from within the mosque in an attempt, albiet unsuccessful, to use it's status as a religious building to protect him.


• Another nearby wounded terrorist was not shot right after this because he made very clear by his actions that he was surrendering.

On the other hand we have Margaret Hassan, who headed a humanitarian organization called CARE International. Things to note:

• She was brutally murdered in cold blood by more of these terrorists, people just like the guy shot in the first incident.


• She was blindfolded and wearing an orange jumpsuit when she was shot in the head at point-blank range.


• She had lived in Iraq for 30 years and her only goal was to help as many people as possible.

Questions:

• Which of these two incidents is getting the most coverage by the mainstream media?


• Of the two people who pulled the trigger in these incidents, who had the greatest justification in doing so?


• Which of them is being vilified in the press and by the Left?

Matthew Heidt at Froggy Ruminations cuts through the crap and lays out the reality of the situation:

Its a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps, and moveon.org. Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to spend one man minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist, its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

By the way, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses.

As so many have asked, what about the Geneva Conventions?

What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand you first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Bear in mind that this is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experiences gained on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary which is a double No No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same... Marines get hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

As a bonus, here is an excerpt from Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949:

It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary and resort to perfidy. ...

The following acts are examples of perfidy... (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness...

Netflix first impressions

Last week the Geekette and I signed up for Netflix. For anyone not familiar with this service (which should be few and far between among those who are online) it provides, for a monthly fee, a mail-order DVD movie rental service. You choose which movies you want on their website and they send them to you in the mail. You can have up to three movies checked out at a time and you can keep a movie for as long as you want. Wal-Mart has a similar service (priced about 30 cents less per month for three movies, or a few bucks less for two) but I decided to go with Netflix for the following reasons:

• Netflix is the originator of this business model so they have the most experience.


• Since they've been at it longest, their recommendation engine's database has the most data and will produce more suitable results.


• Although I haven't heard one way or the other there's a chance that Wal-Mart may have "special" Wal-Mart exclusive versions of some movies which have been altered. They've been known to do this with music CD's.

As for the home theater system, it consists of a Hitachi 50" projection TV, a Panasonic DVD player with support for Dolby Digital and Sony DTS, and a Pioneer digital decoder/amplifier that also supports DD and DTS running Acoustic Research speakers and a 10" powered subwoofer. It's certainly not state of the art but it works well, it sounds great, and the screen is plenty large enough that I'm not yet desperate to get an HD television.

I signed up and queued up a few movies. The next day, I received emails indicating that all three movies were on their way. The day after that, they all arrived in the mail. Netflix maintains several distribution centers around the country and the one that services my area is close enough that it takes only a day to get there.

The DVD's arrive in sleeves (which appear to be made of Tyvek or a similar material) which are enclosed in specially-designed envelopes. The envelope is also used to return the DVD's and the postage is prepaid. All you do is put it back, seal it, and drop it in the mailbox.

As a contrast to the fast service, however, the first movie I watched demonstrated one downside to this service. During a short section of the film, about a minute or two in length, the DVD would not play correctly on the player. Frames would freeze and would often be corrupted which is the hallmark of the player's inability to read the data accurately. The disc itself was noticeably scratched up with most of the scratches being of the fine type that comes with much use. Cleaning it didn't help but, fortunately, the section was short and the rest of the movie played fine.

Netflix knows that this is a potential issue so they include on the DVD sleeve a couple of checkboxes that you can mark if you encounter problems. You can tell them if the DVD was unplayable, if it was the wrong DVD, and whether or not you wish a replacement DVD of the same movie sent to you. As this movie wasn't actually unplayable, I didn't check any of the boxes. In the future, though, I probably will check the unplayable box if I encounter this type of problem. The second movie I watched did not have any problems at all even though it also had a considerable amount of fine scratches.

So far I've watched two of the three movies I initially received. I'll probably watch the third before the end of this coming weekend. The first two have been sent back and emails arrived the next day indicating that they had arrived. The next movie in my queue was sent that day, and the one after that was sent the following day.

So far I'm pretty well satisfied with the service. The nice thing is that I can now go back and watch some movies I want to see again, or that I missed in the theaters, but didn't want to rent or buy. If a movie sucks, I just send it back and get another one. One clear positive feature, which is one of the big selling points, is that I can keep a movie for as long as I want if I want to watch it multiple times.

Conclusion: I wish I had done this sooner as I'm finally going to get to watch some of the movies I've been wanting to see for some time. I don't really have any excuse not to as I no longer have to rent each one separately. It's a cool service and, at 18 bucks a month it's a lot cheaper than renting the same number of movies as I'll likely be watching, it's definitely cheaper than watching movies in the theater when I don't particularly care where I see them, and it's way cheaper than dealing with late fees. If you like movies, and especially if you spend more than 18 bucks a month on movie rentals, it's recommended.

Wherein your humble blogger learns a lesson

Yesterday the Geekette and I were at a local mall. Among other stores, we stopped into this one store which sells what I would describe as "eclectic and new age clothing and other items." To give you an idea of what this store is like they sell beads and other jewelry, incense and holders, books on various different religions including buddhism and wicca, full-length cloaks (I actually own two cloaks made by the same outfit that this store buys from; they're cool to wear at sci-fi/fantasy fan conventions), and other stuff like that. Further specific examples are a t-shirt that says "Buddhaful" under a picture of Buddha holding hands with an Indian god (Ganesh, I think) on one side and Jesus on the other, and a shelf holding several binders containing back issues of High Times magazine. Needless to say, it's not the kind of store a conservative Christian would likely feel comfortable in.

We were there mainly because they have cool clothing and we ended up walking out of there with three velvet skirts for the Geekette as well as a calendar featuring the art of Michael Whelan who specializes in fantasy art. His works have graced the covers of countless fantasy novels. While we where there, a very interesting thing happened which just brought home the message that you really can't assume anything about anybody just by looking at them, or even where they work.

The young woman who was working there was, I'm guessing, somewhere in her twenties. She was slim with long, dark hair, and was wearing clothing of the type they sold there. She was quite attractive and the clothing suited her very well. I'm looking at something and she just up and asks me, "So, which was it for you, Bush or Kerry?"

I responded, "Do you really want to know the answer?" She said she did so I said, "I voted for the man who won the election."

My jaw just about hit the floor when she said, "I was for Bush, too." This was the very last thing I expected to hear from someone working in a store like that. After all, the wall behind one of the counters was full of stickers with slogans like, "Keep your laws off my body!" and "My other car is a broomstick." Basically the store comes across as a bastion of social liberalism. Not that that's a bad thing, since as a (small "l") libertarian, I agree with liberals on many social issues.

What ensued was a pleasantly surprising discussion of the political situation. She didn't like Kerry because he didn't seem to be for anything in particular. She also grasped that we really are at war and that Bush is pursuing the correct strategy, or at least more correct than anything offered by Kerry and the Democrats. Most of the discussion, at least on my end, was about why the terrorists hate us so much. I would have liked to continue but we needed to get going as we were having guests over for dinner. If I see her again in the future, I may give her my email address in case she wants to discuss it further.

But it just goes to show that, just because someone appears to be very liberal in terms of how they dress and where they work, it ain't necessarily so.

World of Warcraft first impressions

For the last couple of days I've been playing the World of Warcraft open beta. Their servers are experiencing technical difficulties right now which prevent me from playing so I thought I'd write this up instead.

I have almost no experience with fantasy MMORPG's so I don't really have any concrete basis for comparison. My experience consists of:

• Playing Asheron's Call briefly. I hooked up with a couple of friends who gave me a bunch of phat lewt so my character was considerably more powerful than his level would indicate. I had little idea what I was doing and quickly tired of the game. I only played a couple of sessions.


• Playing Guild Wars briefly during their open beta. Again, only a couple of sessions since the beta was short.


• Watching a friend play Dark Age of Camelot.

Most of my massively-multiplayer game experience is with Planetside, which is a MMOFPS (massively-multiplayer online first-person shooter). I subscribed to it for a while and played several sessions. I may subscribe again now that my financial situation has improved, but I haven't decided for sure. There are still some RPG elements to the game but it's all PvP and you actually have to aim at what you're shooting at. It's much like Tribes 2 writ large, though without jetpacks. Not surprising as part of the team that developed Planetside also worked on Tribes and Tribes 2.

So here are my initial thoughts on World of Warcraft after putting a couple of hours into it.

First of all, it's very pretty. They take advantage of at least some of my video card's advanced capabilities. For example, when running across the snow, you can see it shining in the sun as it reflects the light. I'm sure it will scale very nicely to lower-end hardware. One of the things about such games is that they can't afford not having it run on lower-end hardware.

There are eight races to choose from; four from the "Alliance" and four from the "Horde." For each race, there are three or four character classes to choose from. For example, you have your basic warrior and mage, but also have classes such as hunter, priest, druid, shaman, and so on. Some classes are common to several races, others are unique to one or two. I have two characters I've played so far. I've worked both up to fifth level. The first is a Dwarf Paladin who is currently armed with a two-handed war hammer which deals a pretty good whack to its target. He has two magical abilities: the first is a self-targeting spell which allows him to do extra damage on each strike, the second is a healing spell which targets others. The second character is a Tauren Shaman who is currently wielding a one-handed mace and a wooden shield. Taurens are basically humanoid bulls; effectively minotaurs. He also has two magical abilities. The first is a lightning bolt for distance attack and the second is the standard heal others spell. In his case, a typical attack would consist of throwing a couple lightning bolts as the target charges at him, then wailing on it with the mace once it gets there.

Most of the races have their own section of the game world, but some do double up. The Taurens and the Undead are by themselves, but the Dwarves and Gnomes share a single area. I don't know how it works on the PvP servers; it may be that they all mix it up. This allows players of each race to experience quests that are specific to that race, without it getting too busy in any one area.

It's the quests which drive the game, at least as far as I've played. They're clearly tailored to build you up in level and ability with low chance of dying. I've died only once when my Tauren character wandered into an area that was clearly for higher level characters. Other than that, I've been able to handle the quests pretty easily. The quests also give you something to focus on rather than indiscriminate slaughter and destruction. I'm sure the other games in this genre do pretty much the same thing but this is the first time I've really sat down and played through several quests.

You have the staples of RPG games such as NPC's which serve the functions of merchants, weaponsmiths, armorers, etc. So far I've only bought one thing from any of these guys which was a better mace for my Tauren. Other than that I've made do with items I've looted from the bodies of critters I've killed and stuff I've received as rewards for completing quests.

The user interface, as you would expect from what's effectively a third-generation game in this genre, is well laid-out and pretty intuitive. As with any such game, you'll be well-advised to learn how to use the keyboard to access the various functions rather than clicking on them with the mouse. One nice thing which differs from Blizzard's Diablo games is that every item takes up one spot in your pack, rather than some being larger than others. Also, multiples of several items will stack in one slot rather than each taking a single slot. There is a limit, I think it's ten, though it may differ depending on the item. In addition, you can have additional storage pouches and bags on your belt which allow you to carry even more stuff.

The game allows for groups, which I'm sure the other games do as well. This adds a social element to the game which is very important. Groups can then complete quests together and the experience is shared between them. Planetside does the same thing with squads. In fact, you really need to be in squads if you want to advance in that game as you get much more experience than if you act alone. When I was playing Planetside, I had much more fun when I was in a squad. I haven't joined any groups in WoW yet since my quests have all been oriented toward solo action. But I'm sure that later quests will require cooperation between multiple players.

I've enjoyed playing it so far. It's much like Diablo writ large with the standard third-person 3D perspective and a whole lot of other players in the game with you. However, I doubt I'll subscribe to it when it releases to retail. The thing about these kinds of games is that there isn't any real skill involved when doing actual combat. You don't have to aim, you just attack and whether or not you hit, as well as the damage you do, is based on random number generation combined with your stats. Just like rolling dice in a tabletop RPG. The skill comes in choosing how to equip your character and knowing when it's time to run away. There is strategy, and some tactics, but the player doesn't have any direct effect on the outcome of combat. There's also the social aspect. What attracted me to Planetside was the FPS aspect where you actually have to aim at what you're shooting at. There is still the matter of how you equip your character, and you also do increase in ability which allows you to use more advanced weapons and drive various vehicles. The social aspect is also there as noted above.

In short, if you're a fan of Ultima Online, Everquest, Asheron's Call, Dark Age of Camelot, and so on, you'll almost certainly like World of Warcraft. As for me, I'll probably play it until the beta expires but, if I'm going to spend actual money on an MMO game, I'll probably just go back to Planetside.

Demise of a terrorist

Yasser Arafat, according to reports, continues to linger in this world. Assuming the reports are true and he's not actually stone cold dead, I am willing to bet that his brain is without activity and that his body is being kept alive solely through artificial means.

Some say that he should have been killed years ago and wonder why Israel didn't do exactly that. I've wondered that myself. The likeliest reason I can think of is that they didn't want him to be declared a martyr, as he surely would have had he died at the hands of the Israeli military, and have his death used as the inspiration for a new wave of violence in the streets and suicide bomb attacks.

This, then, is the most fitting death for a man like Arafat. He does not give his life in holy combat against the Zionist foe. Instead he lingers and then slowly fades away, his frail body a mere shell of what it once was. The vultures, including his wife, gather to pick over the corpse for any scraps of money and power they can scavenge. He passes from this world quietly and ignominiously, unlike all those he sent to their violent deaths. Israel, and all those who are committed to the fight against terrorism, could ask for no better way for the soul of this mass murderer to depart this world.

And how fitting also that he spends his final days in France so far from the Palestine of his dreams. He is venerated by many French, which should tell you all you need to know about them. (Yes, many French don't share in that view, just as many French don't hate the US and support our actions in Iraq. Too bad they're not the ones in control of the government.) Just as fitting will be his final resting place should he be laid to rest in the family plot in Gaza. It is literally a dump, filled with refuse and suffused with the stench of rotting fruit and donkey manure.

In the end, by eschewing the violent death that so many of his people experienced, he shows himself for the complete hypocrite and utter coward that he was. My fervent hope is that once he has gone to the eternal reward that is his due (and I'm sure it's not hard to guess what I think that will be) and is finally out of the way some real progress can be made in finally ending the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, one way or another.

Grieving

In observing the reactions of those who supported Kerry to Bush's victory in the election, I was struck by how similar they seemed to how someone reacts when a loved one dies or when presented with the news that he or she is terminally ill. I then wondered if these reactions could be characterized in the context of the five stages of grief.

Psychiatrist Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross described the classic pattern of coping strategies of patients who know their diagnosis is terminal and broke it down into five stages. These stages do not necessarily come in a particular order but most people go through all of them to some degree when faced with their own mortality or that of a loved one. Speaking from personal experience, I think they also apply when a close, long-term relationship comes to an end. I'll list them out below and then provide examples of how a Kerry supporter might react that fits in with each stage.

Stage 1: Denial
The person can't believe that Bush has won. There's no way that it could be happening. How can so many people be so stupid? This election was obviously rigged. If they count all the absentee and provisional ballots, Kerry will win.

Stage 2: Anger or resentment
The person starts lashing out at those he or she thinks is responsible. For example, blaming Evangelical Christians and wealthy people and accusing them of racism, homophobia, and generally not caring about anybody but themselves. Oh, and they're all stupid, too.

Stage 3: Bargaining
This one probably isn't expressed as much since the election is over and nothing's going to change the results. However, I have been seeing several articles saying that Bush now should move to the center and be "less divisive" in his policies. After all, 48% of the people voted against him and that has to mean something.

Stage 4: Depression
Pretty self-explanatory. I'm already seeing this. People are going into a funk and thinking it's all over. Why even try anymore? The fascists have won and all our civil liberties are doomed. I'm leaving the country.

Stage 5: Acceptance
I'm aready seeing this as well. The essay I linked to in a previous post is an example of this. Some Democrats have accepted that Bush and the Republicans are simply more appealing and now they're trying to come up with constructive ways to do what's necessary to make the Democratic party viable again.

Parallels

It just occurred to me that the 2004 Presidential election shares some parallels with the Bush administrations strategy in the war against terrorists and their sponsors.

In simplified terms, the strategy is to encourage the Islamic world that they need to reform their culture and take responsibility for their failures rather than blame it all on the United States and rest of Western civilization. Show them that democracy is a better alternative to Islamic fascism and hopefully they will realize that joining the 21st century is preferable to living in the 8th. Crushing defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that they are simply unable to stand up to us militarily and emerging democracies in those countries will show them a better way. For a more in-depth analysis of the overall strategy, check out the articles on the subject by Steven Den Beste which are included on his "best of" page.

The Democrats now find themselves in a similar situation. Despite their best efforts, they have been handed a crushing defeat. President Bush won a true majority of the popular vote, something that hasn't happened since his father won in 1988, and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have both increased. Tom Daschle, the Senate minority leader from South Dakota, was defeated by his Republican challenger. The Democrats are now faced with a choice. They can continue with their current policies, and risk future defeat at the polls. Or they can examine those policies along with the beliefs and attitudes behind them -- their "political culture" if you will -- and make the changes necessary to be successful once again. Some Democrats, like the author of this essay, are already doing exactly that. Hat tip to Mike at Cold Fury who provided the link. Read his take on it as well.

The stupidity of the majority

In a post from last March, I wrote about the left's general attitude that they are more intelligent and wise than those on the right. By extension, this means that people who voted for Kerry are smarter than those who voted for Bush. Now that Bush has won the election, the left is going crazy and this once again is a central theme.

We start with this wonderful cover for the November 4 issue of the Daily Mirror, a UK "newspaper" (read: tabloid rag) that very clearly embodies this attitude. The first link is to Kim du Toit's post on the subject and he responds in his own ever-irascible style. I first saw this cover over at Little Green Footballs.

Of course, that's a tabloid and they're expected to be over the top. However, our next stop is an article that is presented in a much more "respectable" publication, MSN's Slate online magazine. Here's a snippet:

The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)

I love the parenthetical comment. Republicans are wrong to feel superior because they clearly aren't. Liberals are entitled to feel superior because they clearly are. The author goes on:

The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence. The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind.

Yep, we're all just thugs and the liberals only mistake is to underestimate just how thuggish we all are. This despite all the reports of leftist thuggery leading up to and during the election.

The author continues by telling us that a core reason for our ignorance is religion, specifically Christianity. Uh-huh. Tell to that to Kim. Tell that to my coworker who voted for Bush and is not a Christian. Tell that to the 4% of Protestant Christians who voted for Bush in 2000 but didn't in 2004.

Of course, it wouldn't be a proper liberal rant without those two staples, class and race:

The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm.

This stuff practically parodies itself. Yet this is what a large portion of the left really believes. Dale Franks responds to this bit thusly:

There. See? I knew we’d get around to the Marxism. It’s all the big capitalists, exploiting the proletariat, who are numbed to their capitalist exploitation by the opiate of religion.

Workers of the world, untie¹! You have nothing to lose but your...well...your jobs for one. Oh, and any hope of economic advancement. But, at least you’ll get to live in large, drafty cement stack-a-prole apartment complexes, like, oh, Cabrini Green. But without the violence, because the Secret Police will quickly nacht-und-nebel anyone who even looks suspicious.

Or happy.

Oh, naturally, it’ll be very sad that the Secret Police are even needed, but, you know, with violent troglodytes running around free, there’ll always be problems. Really, a stint in a "reeducation camp" will probably be the best thing for them. Fresh air. Honest labor.
...
¹No, it's not a typo.

To close, the author has this to say:

Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time.

Yeah, and Democrats and liberals never cheat. All I have to do is say one word: Chicago. Where the dead vote early and vote often. And don't forget all the other incidents of intimidation, fraud, and sabotage, many of which are documented at Election Hell. Yes, Republicans have done their share, and it's inexcusable. Democrats, however, have done far more.

What we have here is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Liberals believe that they are right. They believe it with almost religious fervor. It is inconceivable to them that any rational person could disagree with them. When presented with the undeniable fact that 51% of the American voting public has done just that, they are now faced with the problem of how to reconcile their beliefs with reality. They can do one of two things. They can either modify their beliefs to fit what really happened, or they can look for some other cause for the discrepancy. Changing fundamental beliefs is hard. It is much easier to advocate another cause and, in this case, their attitude that they are more intelligent then conservatives is easily extended to the theory that as many as 59 million people are idiots.

See also Dale Franks' take on it over at QandO which I quoted above. As usual, he does a much better job of it than I. Mike over at Cold Fury weighs in with a simple but elegant response.

Bush/Cheney sign watch: Coda

Now that the election is over, this will likely be the last in the sign watch series of posts.

After having their sign vandalized numerous times, the people who put it there put one up in a very sturdy frame. The sign itself was covered with chicken wire and it looked like there was a clear plastic sheet as well. Not long after that, another sign was posted right behind it. This one was about twice as tall and the frame was metal. They were both there for a few days and then the wood one was removed. The sign on the metal frame remained unmolested until the election.

After Bush's victory, a new sign was posted right below the existing one on the same frame. It was the same large size, it appeared to be hand-made, and it said "Bush wins again!" Yesterday morning on the way to work I noticed that it had been defaced with spray paint. This morning, it had been partially destroyed. In addition, a sign supporting the Republican candidate for governor here in Washington, Dino Rossi, had been partially destroyed.

I guess the crushing disappointment is just too much for these thugs to bear. Poor babies.