A copy of this column ran in the World-Herald today. The entirety of my commentary can be summed into the following declaration: my god, people, when you get an actual job it's time to start doing things for yourself. My grandfather's generation was dodging bombs and sewing parachutes at 20; my father's generation was working on starting families; and even my slacker Generation X cohorts were being independent in their own "I don't really care" way. Where did all these 22-year-olds who need (or allow) their parents to call their bosses and ask why "Bobby didn't get a better raise" come from? How can that not be a scarlet letter of dependence and insecurity? And what are these parents thinking?

I start a new job today. I've taken a part-time position in a different department of the Firm (as a Proposal Writer, which as I understand it involves responding to solicitations from prospective clients with information gathered from the departments that would actually do the work). Given my general prohibition against talking about work in my Web log, and the fact that at least a few people at work read this, I won't be mentioning it much, but supposedly people like to know these things. The rest of my shift will remain in Proofing, so I'll actually be doing two different jobs that comprise a single 40-hour week. We'll see how it goes.

This does mean I'm going to have to be awake at 10 a.m. now. Silly business world.

I was privy to an interesting conversation amongst the hair stylists when I went for a haircut this weekend. Jocularity gave way to teasing as it was revealed that the four were planning an outing after the salon closed, across the river into the den of sin known as Iowa, to see the male strippers (colorfully described by the woman cutting my hair as "the skanky men who might get a dollar from me, if they're lucky, 'cause the cover charge is just too much"). There was a brief pause when one of them suddenly exclaimed "Oh, I forgot to get more batteries!" And then they all started laughing as the woman turned red and frantically insisted they were for her camera, accompanied by another of the woman laughing that "I didn't know that sort of thing went on there; maybe I don't want to go."

I did not attend any houses of ill repute this weekend, but I did get to tie up a strange woman. In my defense, she consented, albeit warily. Perhaps it would have been better if the CPR instructor had assigned the only guy in the class to demonstrate an injury treatment that did not involve bondage.

I lack a frame of reference for dream comparison with most others, in much the way a colorblind person regards the concept of "green" with a wary, conspiracy-laden raised eyebrow. Supposedly the masses have realistic dream sequences, indistinguishable from the mundane in terms of sensory experience, so much so that a horror film staple is the frightening event that reveals itself as an illusory occurrence when the character awakes. I've never had dreams like that. I dream in vague emotional states, far from realism, and almost always in the third person, leaving me a spectator watching myself in some Escher-esque loop. I've never confused dreaming and real life, and I rarely dream of anything that has actually happened to me.

A few days ago I saw a television commercial for Brita filters, and it was such a visual representation of a recurrent dream state of mine that I actually stopped to watch it (which is saying something, since I judge commercials within the first few seconds). It showed people in everyday situations, surrounded by the trappings of normal life, swimming. In the air. Not flying, but treating the air as though it were water, treading to hover and using swimming strokes to move around. I have a dream that uses this element about once every other month (conversely, I've never dreamed I can fly). I'd just never seen it depicted outside my dreams. It was very cool.

You know it's going to be an interesting day when you see "flocculating" in a document . . .

Labels: proofreading

This house is a steal, but you'll need your Social Security number and proof of pantheon membership in order to apply for financing.

(I know, Mom, I'm not supposed to tease the hometown paper . . .)

"A quasar is in fact a large galaxy anchored by a supermassive black hole that is actively--very actively-- feeding on surrounding gas. The frenzy causes the gas to heat up and glow so brightly that it outshines the galaxy itself."

I misclicked in my Web comic folder today, leading me accidentally to what I thought was the defunct Avalon comic I enjoyed several years ago. Which apparently isn't defunct anymore. Granted, three new comics isn't a "phoenix from the ashes" story, but, hey, I'll take new comics when I can get them. If this is your first exposure to it, start at the beginning.

In defiant protestation, winter announced its exit with a sizable storm that left up to two feet of snow in some parts of the state, but the avalanche predicted for Omaha failed to materialize (although Lane still got two snow days out of it). It won't last long, I'm afraid. I should make a snowman.

I'm afforded for the first time access to an indoor heated parking garage during a major snowstorm, and I was amused today with the almost Venus-like microcosm percolating within it. The humidity, imported in small doses and left in puddles around the parked cars, was so high as to create a miasma, literally distorting the far end of the garage with a light fog, and the earthy, acrid mixture of car exhaust and road salt was more of a sensory experience than a scent, as much tasted and felt as smelled. I had fleeting images of emerging from the garage with my coat smoking and my glasses pitted and etched. Such is the nature of imagination.

I read an article about this case in the latest Discover magazine today. I had no idea this was even possible. Apparently there is a relatively rare occurrence involving two fertilized ova combining into one organism, with each providing the cell lines (and DNA) for only parts of the final organism (creating the possibility that the DNA from a person's cheek swab won't match the DNA of her kidneys or ovaries). Such a person essentially has two similar, but different, DNA patterns. That throws genetic testing into an entirely new light. It also means that a clone of such a person or animal, which would be sampled off only one DNA pattern, would be completely new and unique.

The World-Herald today criticized a New York Times piece that supported the National Popular Vote's plan to abolish the winner-take-all system (a plan I mentioned previously). This in itself is not surprising. The winner-take-all system favors states with smaller populations (because all states automatically receive two votes on top of whatever they receive based on their population), so smaller states stand to lose more with such a plan. The World-Herald's piece, though, was off on a couple of points.

It characterized the movement as left-wing and designed solely to prevent conservative candidates from winning, which is a something of a stretch. They even used "bipartisan coalition" (the self-descriptor of the NPV) in quotes, implying that such a term is inaccurate and a veil to disguise other motivations. The group itself, though, really is bipartisan (go take a look at the legislation they've sponsored in Illinois), and their advisory board is made up of a pretty solid mix of former Democratic *and* Republican congressmen (not to mention that George Bush, Sr. and Richard Nixon both supported a popular vote). It's true that more liberals than conservatives are likely to support such a move, but the majority of people supporting the idea aren't doing it specifically to change the balance of power, but rather to iron out some inequities in the current system (things like voter disenfranchisement). As for me, I didn't like the winner-take-all system even in high school civics (and debated it with the teacher), 6 years before switching from Republican to Independent, because it just strikes me as wrong.

The World-Herald's other flaw manifested in the closing statement: "The Electoral College turns out some strange results sometimes. But it's designed to keep a few red states [and] a few blue states . . . from making a president alone. Even when the results are inconvenient for the New York Times." The Electoral College was designed to do no such thing. The winner-take-all system was adopted independently by each state in an "arms race" and was not debated nationally either by the Framers of the Constitution or by Congress. While the Electoral College itself was set up in the Constitution, the method for choosing the electors is a matter of state law. There was no conscious direction behind it. And it has an entire list of problems the World-Herald opinion didn't address.

New recipe page up. You knew it was coming. How could I possibly resist such a creative endeavor.

Go ahead, tease away.

I'm disappointed to see one of my state's Senators attached to this. There went any chance that I might vote to re-elect him.

Presented for your Emmy nod, a hodgepodge, nay, perhaps even a medley, of disparate tidbits, offering a mercifully brief window on my week:

1) Scott and Lisa were nice enough to give me a late birthday present in the form of a chimney inspection (the actual brick column attached to my house, not any sort of medical examination involving plumbing of the nether regions). Unfortunately, the brief notation of "chimney needs work" on the house inspection was a little more vague than the more precise entry of "the inner lining is shot and is several thousand dollars to fix (and don't light any fires in it without fixing it unless you like your house smelling like wood smoke)." The chimney guy (I don't think they call them "sweeps" here, although that would be cool in a "Mary Poppins" sort of way) advised the installation of a ventless gas log instead (somewhere between $1,400 and $1,800). Which through some odd twist of fate is roughly what an iMac costs. Choices, choices.

2) One of my great aunts (or maybe a great-great aunt) passed away a few days ago. I imagine some of her closer relatives are distressed, but I say anyone who can live independently until 94 and then die surrounded by loved ones has had a pretty good run. I've never really understood the concept of mourning anyway. I'd rather throw a life celebration. Maybe hire a couple of clowns and play Twister.

3) I started volunteering at the library last Friday. So far I've spent a couple of hours a day in the fundraising department doing mass mailings (which finished up today). I'll probably volunteer for the summer reading program, too. It's been good to meet some new people (and force myself to adjust my schedule). I'm still waiting to hear from the Fontenelle.

4) I heard a Burger King commercial tonight that parodied "Brokeback Mountain." I was surprised they ran it in this demographic, especially given that the ad was for some monstrosity of a cheeseburger and the majority of the audience for "Brokeback Mountain" was female (not that women can't like cheeseburgers, mind you, but traditionally such fare is marketed toward men). I wasn't that impressed with the voice actors (and the parody has already been done to death on the Internet), but it was interesting to see a controversial subject used in an everyday ad in a largely conservative area. I'm curious about the impression the majority of the listening audience has for it.

5) Snow this weekend, supposedly. Time to batten down the hatches. Although I don't actually have any battens. I do have some space heaters, though.

6) I've been reading Maureen Dowd's "Are Men Necessary?" (which only received 2-1/2 stars on Amazon). I've enjoyed it so far, so either I haven't reached the parts that have drawn ire or I'm less inclined to be critical because I tend to agree with her newspaper columns. Although I'm not entirely sure where the subject of her lament, the vast crowd of empowered, independent women who have scared off all the insecure men and are frantically discovering in their late twenties and early thirties that society wanted them to get married first and *then* start a career, are hanging out. T-shirts, girls. You really need t-shirts to make you stand out.

I took a few hours off from work tonight to watch the moonrise. It was a full moon that peeked its head over the horizon about 3 minutes (I actually checked the sunset and moonrise times online) after the sun set, so for the first 15 minutes or so I had a wonderful pinkish sunset-lit moon while there was still enough ambient light to see the landscape. After twilight, I had to choose between seeing the details on the moon surrounded by blackness or the silvery, featureless disc hanging above the land (there was no happy median). I took some of both, but only the closeups looked acceptable.

I know, I know, everyone is tired of pictures of the moon . . . ;)

After taking photos, I didn't really feel like going back to work, so I stopped by to chat with Lane (and drop off a couple of movies) and play with the twins. Alec was less enthused (as usual), although she's getting over the "wail at the first sight of a stranger" phase. Kyle knows I'm going to pick her up and carry her around while I'm talking to Lane, so she's usually smiley.

Labels: twins

I've found myself gazing into the black abyss this evening, compelled by what one might call an addiction to the tangled and intertwining vines of Wikipedia. What began with a simple news article about the U.N. Security Council quickly spiraled through the history (and political machinations) of the Council's veto incidents, the brief-but-frightening history of nuclear proliferation and the horrible concept of apartheid, a word that simply will be unrecognizable to anyone younger than 25.

My digital traipsing has left me irritable about one omnipresent but largely unreported fact: most of the global political structure is the proverbial "Good Ol' Boys Club." It's all about whom you know. Here's how it works: The U.N. Security Council (the "inner" governing body) is comprised of 15 members. Ten of those are elected and serve 2-year terms before their seats are rotated to another member from the General Assembly. The other five are permanent, and have been since the end of WWII. That right there is a significant level of power. But on top of that, as an incentive to encourage the U.S. and U.S.S.R. to join at its founding, each of the five (not the five collectively, *each* of the five) holds a veto power for any U.N. resolution. Even if the other 14 members vote to approve something, if one of the five permanent members says "no," the resolution is scrapped. Who thought this was a good idea?

I actually read through the complete list of 257 vetoes, hoping to find examples of principles, compassion and heroic defiance, but instead found a very long list of countries protecting their own interests or dismissing complaints about themselves. China has vetoed the membership of numerous other Asian countries, the Soviet Union vetoed resolutions against its invasion of Afghanistan and in one year alone 17 membership applications, France has vetoed resolutions against its territorial disputes and the U.S. has rather flippantly vetoed anything it doesn't like at all (complaints against it, revocations of immunity from the International Criminal Court for its peacekeepers and, just in the last decade, 10 resolutions against Israel). This is on top of the threatened vetoes against resolutions that never made it to the table (such as China's threatened veto of any resolution against the Darfur conflict because of its oil interests). The veto power really needs to go.

I also read a lot of criticism against the "grandfathered in" power structure by other nations who see themselves as equal, if not superior, contributors to the world economy and global security. Japan and Germany, for example, are the number two and three contributors to the U.N., and India is the world's largest republic and one of the largest contributors of troops to U.N. peacekeeping missions. Each wants a permanent seat. Japan's seat is supported by the U.S., the U.K. and France, but opposed by China. Germany's seat is supported by France (imagine that) but opposed by most of the rest of Europe, which would prefer the U.K. and France convert their seats to "general European Union" seats (yeah, that's not happening). India's bid is supported by France, the U.K. and Russia, opposed by the U.S. and supported by China *only* if India is not given a veto power (so much for equality). On top of that, there are complaints that Africa and the Middle East are under-represented by not having any members despite their populations and economies, but there has been no push for either. An Islamic member, in particular, would be highly controversial either way (not giving them one is a source of tension over "us vs. them" mentalities and the validity of U.N. authority, while giving them one may well prevent the U.N. from ever acting in the Middle East again as every resolution is vetoed). It's all a big tangled mess that leaves the U.N. largely powerless.

To add to the inequality, the five permanent members are the only ones technically "permitted" under the NPT to have nuclear weapons (and all five do). Although other countries have them (either openly in defiance or secretly in a "What? Nuclear weapons? Me?" way), these five are explicitly allowed to have them. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not at all in favor of Iran or North Korea having nuclear weapons, but what sort of hypocrisy must be invoked before you can say "Yes, I know I have 10,000 nuclear weapons, but we're not talking about me. Give me your nuclear weapon before I give you a wedgie." If all the nuclear powers were on track to eliminate their arsenals within, say, 50 years, I'd completely understand, but they're not. It's another example of "Well, we're not going to sign the treaty unless you give us special treatment, and without our support it will collapse."

Maybe I just don't like special treatment and bullies.

From one of Lisa's eBay searches. It's still running as I post this, but if you read it more than a couple of days after today it likely will be over (and eventually gone).

Google announced its new Google Mars site today (the follow up to the immensely cool Google Earth). The default "elevation" view is a bit scary, so switch to "infrared" or use the menu at the top to find a specific crater or plain. They have the locations of the spacecraft we've managed to land (or crash) on the surface marked, but they're far too small to actually see.

Cox finally e-mailed me back today (nine days after I e-mailed them). The gist of their letter is as follows:

I certainly understand your frustration with your account no [sic] being paid, and this resulting in a large balance on your account. With the Easypay
we don't want you to worry about paying your bill, but . . . you would still be able to see via your bank account that no payments had been made to Cox.

So I guess it's my fault because I didn't look at my bank statement and notice that, among the dozens of entries per month in cryptic shorthand, there weren't any for Cox. Silly me.

This provides the closing bookend for a week during which I'd largely forgotten about this little frustration except for those moments of endurance when Cox's new commercial bragging about winning the JD Power & Associates award for highest customer satisfaction for Internet service appeared in my television shows.

At least they were nice to enough to confirm that it didn't go on my credit report. *That* would have really annoyed me.

I've been a little disappointed in my (admittedly infrequent) television watching lately. The Stargates (there are two) are winding down (two episodes left each), and although they're still my favorites they're not at their peaks. SG-1 was supposed to end after season 7 and hand the entire franchise to Atlantis. Instead (and I'm not ungrateful, don't get me wrong), SciFi decided to give the cast pretty much anything they wanted to stay on the air another two seasons at this point (since it's the channel's highest-rated show ever). This meant the loss of the main character, infrequent appearances to accommodate a maternity leave for another character, the addition of two new permanent characters and two frequent guest stars (three of whom are well-known main characters from other scifi shows), a plethora of guest stars (including Lou Gosset, Jr. and Isaac Hayes) and the creation of an entirely new enemy out of nothing since they defeated the main enemy of the first seven seasons in anticipation of the end of the series. Despite all of that, it's still watchable (my favorite character is still there, anyway). They've called the upcoming episodes the "season finale" and not the "series finale," so they might be back for season 10 yet.

The Office is still fantastic. It's the only consistently good show I watch. Maybe its brand of comedy just appeals to me. Scrubs, on the other hand, has jumped the shark (a term whose etymology I did not know until tonight). The first three seasons had a formula that summarizes as "real-life hospital with eccentric characters and wacky-but-realistic events, punctuated with fantastic and impossible events in JD's daydreams." This season dropped that formula and frequently lets the impossible events occur in the "real-life" setting, with characters giving them no more than passing glances. In the first episode, for example, Turk zips JD into a standard school backback and puts him on a table and in a later episode Jordan's lips balloon to the size of her face when her silicone implants expand (both physically impossible) and Elliot tapes a cheat sheet to JD's chest under his shirt without him noticing until she lifted his shirt up (not impossible, but warranting more than a laughing acceptance from JD). I know that hasn't bothered Cris much, but the switch to slapstick and surrealism is annoying the hell out of me. Plus Dr. Cox is just mean now, instead of mostly mean with occasional father-figure lessons.

I think it's a sign to go back to reading.

Ever have one of those days where you hear a song you've heard a dozen times over the last 20 years and you actually listen to the lyrics for the first time? And then you're forced to wonder what sort of drugs they were doing when they wrote a song about "the morning sun shining like a red rubber ball," despite a definite lack of shining on the part of rubber balls (maybe "red crystal ball" or "red battery powered light-up plastic ball," but rubber?)?

To be fair, that was followed by a song where the singer attempted to rhyme "go" with "survive" (no amount of twang is going to make that work), and the discordant interference of country music on one of my pop stations suddenly made the silliness of a shining rubber ball seem lyrical.

A solicitation directed primarily at the opposite gender (and any particularly fashion-conscious men) follows:

I need a new jacket. Opinions on this one and general advice is welcome.

Thank you, Amazon.com, for always looking out for me.

I actually hauled out my extension ladder at 1 a.m. tonight and climbed onto my garage roof to find a vantage point not obscured by trees and street lights. I'm surprised the cops didn't stop by. This picture isn't nearly as good as the previous ones, but it was somewhat cloudy and the moon had a pretty halo.

To Lisa. :) Who turns 29 today. I think.

Labels: birthdays

"(a) If the examinations or testes were conducted or analyzed off-site."

I thought these were funny. I should make some. Although I'm pretty sure I couldn't take them to work. They'd go well with my cleavage cookies, though.

The courthouse in my hometown was polite enough this week to announce in the local paper the deadline for filing for public office (March 1) and its hours. In the March 2 edition of the paper.

Continuing commentary from the paper:

Another submission supported Notre Dame's decision to ban "The Vagina Monologues" and "Brokeback Mountain" on campus. It's a private university; it can make it's own rules. I'm not arguing that the school should change its decision. But the writer went on to state that "it is so obvious that homosexual acts are a discord, a sin against nature." Hear that, bottlenose dolphins and trumpeter swans? You're sinning against nature. Knock it off. Seriously, using arguments like "it's so obvious" convinces only those who already agree with your opinion. Kind of like criticizing "professors [who] want to teach contrary to common sense" and "the barnacles of so-called freedom of speech, which promote sodomy." Um, okay.

Cal Thomas also lamented about "Brokeback Mountain" (and the awards it has received), but focused most of his column on a film called "Paradise Now," which (according to the reviews, since I haven't seen it) chronicles two days in the lives of a pair of young Palestinian men who are convinced by their leaders to become suicide bombers. Thomas called it "well-produced propaganda" and asked if similar films would be made about Stalin's state-sponsored mass-murder. On the other hand, movie reviewers have given it generally high marks (an average grade of B+). Based on the handful of reviews I've read, the main plot is about the indecision on the part of the two main characters and the conflicting influences of their leader, one love interest who tries to talk them out of it, their indignation of how their people have been treated and their religious beliefs, and in this way portrays them as human, with conflicted emotions and uncertain paths. I certainly don't sympathize with their methods, but to declare them "evil" as Thomas wishes to do ignores the point of the film entirely, which is to show that people, especially young people, make decisions based on what they know and what they believe, and a cycle of violence and retribution will not end until new generations are taught understanding and peace, not hatred and war. To see what prompts people to commit such horrific acts does not condone them; it helps people understand each other.

Thomas also comes up short when he dismisses the beliefs of the bombers, implying that their religious faith (which allows them to justify their actions) is "bad," even as he bases his opinions on homosexuality and atheism in his own faith and claims it to be "the truth." He ignores the quandary that the bombers believe they are doing what their god wants them to do, just as Thomas writes columns based on what he believes his god wants him to do. I think he's failing to see that those he's criticizing, the youth being guided by militant and authoritative leaders, don't see themselves as evil; they believe they're right and doing what they're supposed to do, and the only way to overcome that is through outreach and tolerance, not dismissal.

The Public Pulse today had no shortage of indignation. Two different writers took up the issue of the concealed carry bill currently before the Nebraska legislature. To be honest I'm surprised Nebraska hasn't adopted the bill years ago, given the general conservatism of the state, but I understand the reasons why it hasn't (no need to vent about Ernie Chambers in my comments). I raised an eyebrow at the tone of the submissions, though. The second criticized a state senator who, without dismissing the bill itself, labeled it a "second-tier" issue (the writer called it a "cheap shot" and claimed the senator is "turning his back on his own party"). I realize it's a fairly significant part of the Republican platform, but the Nebraska legislature is officially nonpartisan and was designed that way specifically by its architect to avoid influences from national parties. Senators are expected to represent their constituents, not the party to which they belong, and while a lot of Nebraskans may think the concealed carry bill may be acceptable, it's *not* a primary concern for most (I don't think "second tier" is out of line, considering far more pressing concerns such as agriculture, water distribution and health care).

The first submission was just angry. It also criticized the "second tier" comment, but went on to declare that the Second Amendment is a "God-given right" and lumped dissenters in with those who "want to kill unborn children." I just rolled my eyes at this one. The Second Amendment has become an umbrella for any issue relating to firearms, but it has no bearing on this bill. The bill might be championed by pro-Second Amendment groups, but nothing in the Second Amendment or any Supreme Court ruling mentions concealed carry in any way. Supporters of the bill would be much better off dropping the NRA endorsement and Second Amendment speeches and focusing more on what purpose they want the bill to serve.

I went through my house pictures and put the ones that best represent the way it looks now into a Flickr folder. Just because I was bored.

And my ISP annoyance is being somewhat mitigated by the arrival of my new Firewire DVD burner. Yay for gadgets.

I received a letter from my ISP today. I almost didn't open it because almost everything they send me is a newsletter or other assorted junk mail, but it was *just* official-looking enough to warrant a quick peek. Turns out it was a "disconnection of services" notice because I owed them about $500. Thinking "what the hell?", I logged into my user account to check the bill. Sure enough, a $500 bill overdue and waiting to be paid. I was sure it was a mistake.

Turns out it *was* a mistake, in a way, although I did actually owe them $500. Their online records only go back three months, so I can't actually verify this was the case, but the only thing I can think of is that when I updated my credit card information six months ago I put in the wrong date or missed a digit or something. The end result is that their "EasyPay" system (which is supposed to automatically take care of my bill so I don't have to worry about it) has been attempting to charge the same card for six month, and when the payment was rejected each time (because the card doesn't exist) it rolled over to the next month and waited to try again. Despite it being in their best interests to fix what is obviously a technical error (I put a card on file, so it's not like I was trying to avoid paying) so they can get their money, and despite the fact that they certainly know how to contact me (they have my mailing address, e-mail and phone number), and despite the fact that one e-mail the day after the first payment failure would have fixed it (it took me less than a minute to update the card correctly), the first notification they sent me was a stern "we're disconnecting you next Tuesday" letter six months later. Way to reward a 7-year customer.

In the end, I *do* owe them the money. It was my fault the correct card wasn't on file. But I e-mailed them anyway to point out that errors like this are very easy to fix with customers who are more than happy to fix a glitch, and sending official, stern-sounding letters to customers who have no idea anything is wrong doesn't really inspire loyalty. I imagine it's all computerized and no human actually looked at my account. Most likely it hit a certain dollar amount or time limit and the computer spit out a form letter to mail to me. So I don't see any reason the system couldn't include an automated e-mail the day after a card on file fails to go through (it's not like cards just suddenly start working), which would have solved the problem without the headache it gave me (and without reinforcing my opinion of their competence).

Ironically, I received the notice the day after I was irritated at them because their e-mail server was down for 3 hours. Quality service and excellent communication skills. Go Cox Communications.

I finally found a clip of Yevgeni Plushenko's gala exhibition at the Olympics (the one I mentioned before as being incredible). Give it a watch if you like figure skating. It isn't from NBC, and the Olympic committee is pretty strict about unauthorized showings, so I dunno how long it will be up.