Random Fate

20 Questions Interactive Interview: Joe Gandelman - Updated with question #5

The interview of Joe Gandelman, The Moderate Voice, is in the extended entry below, to allow for my regular posts to have some visibility on my main page. The title of this post will also be updated with the most recent question number, so check back.

I will add each question and answer pair in the interview as they are finished to this post, which will be kept at the top of the site until the interview is completed. Please send suggestions for questions to me at jack -at- randomfate -dot- net, although I reserve the right to modify or not use any suggested questions, depending on how the interview develops.

---

Joe Gandelman, The Moderate Voice, has kindly agreed to participate in my experiment of a "20 Question Interactive Interview" despite his heavy schedule in his entertainment business in the real world and his writing not only for his own weblog but also for Dean's World in blogworld. You can read what inspired the choice of Joe for this interview and a bit of his history in his responses to questions about blogging that he posted recently.

1. Joe, in your discussion about why you started blogging, you told of how you changed careers from being a reporter to being a ventriloquist. Other than the obvious wisecrack that you decided you'd rather be the ventriloquist for a while instead of the dummy mouthing the words of others, what prompted that career change, and why that particular career in entertainment, that is, in ventriloquism?

My full bio (which needs to be updated) is on my ventriloquism site. The link to the still under construction revamped site is http://www.joegandelman.com/bio.html. But in a nutshell: I always wanted to be an actor or comedian and was in lots of musicals at high school. When the moment of truth came to decide a career relatives talked me out of it. I loved politics, so at Colgate University I was a Political Science major. I beame interested in journalism, so in my senior year I set up with the help of a professor an indpendent study project that took me to New Delhi to intern on the Hindustan Times.

After college I went to Northwestern University to get my Masters in journalism...and upon graduation went BACK to India "for a few months" -- which turned into nearly 8 years overseas, writing as a freelance "stringer" for the Chicago Daily News (by line said "Daily News Foreign Service"), and other papers. I later changed my base to Madrid, coming in at the tail end of the Franco era. After Franco's death I became "the full time contributor" as the Monitor called it for The Christian Science Monitor in Madrid with the title "Special Correspondent of".

This is making a long story short but: when I left Spain in December 1978 I spent a year at my parents house looking for a staff newspaper job. I wound up working on the Wichita Eagle-Beacon in Kansas from January 1980-Jan 1982, when the San Diego Union hired and brought me out to San Diego, CA.

Why did I leave journalism? The real story is that I felt journalistic standards had begun to slip and sensationalism had begun to take over. I liked thoughtful analyses where you DID read "on the other hand" versus the "advocacy journalism" that was starting to take over. Most people date the tabloidization of the press really kicking in with the Gary Hart scandal. I felt it was a lot sooner. I increasingly saw editors in almost a frenzy to beat TV and other papers, sometimes making errors. I (politely) clashed with editors on several occasions about stories that I felt were positive that deserved better play -- even follow ups to once front page negative stories. I began to feel as the news media I had dreamed of working in had changed so much that I wanted a divorce. I couldn't see me working in it until retirement or beyond.

I had started ventriloquism as hobby to relieve stress. I love performing and making people of all ages laugh (and I am told my serious posts on my blog do just that...). I got such great response from kids and families in particular that I began to look into doing school programs with kids -- most of them school programs with a theme. Meanwhile, a realtively new hire at my newspaper died of a heart attack at age 50. Then I got into a near fatal car accident, which required more than 20 stitches on my face. I felt: "Life is too short for all of this. I'm going to get my life back on a course I want it to be on."

So I tossed out my staff job and quit, figuring I would do shows to entertrain audiences and teach kids -- taking me back to my original love of performing. And I planned to do freelancing for money...which I still need to get organized to do. The blog was the first step to get me back in "shape."

2. You are one of the few bloggers with a background in journalism, and you have used that experience in several posts at The Moderate Voice to comment on how the news media works from an inside viewpoint. What are your thoughts on the weblogs that are trying to be news-sources, as compared to those that are commentary that sources news from the "old media", especially in light of the openly partisan nature of the majority of weblogs and what you have just said about your discomfort with advocacy journalism?

The concept of weblogs supplanting the news media is a can of worms. Most weblogs today (including mine) are essentially extended "op-ed" pages. Bloggers read other materials written elsewhere and comment on them. The assumption is that the source material is accurate.  Most bloggers do NOT go out and re-report a story, or try to see if a fact is correct. They assume the source material is correct. And remember the old cliché: "'Assume' makes an ass of u and me."

The 2004 campaign's stories that generated original blog reporting were the stories about the Swift Boats and the Dan Rather/CBS debacle. I had a policy that got people angry on my site: I did not care about the military records of EITHER candidate since I felt it was veering the campaign away from more serious issues. Obviously many people (including many voters) did not agree. But in the case of Swift Boats there was some original reporting, interviews with the Swift Boat people who made the allegations. Similarly, in the case of Dan Rather, you saw unity among some bloggers (mostly conservative ones) who raised specific questions about those memos. And this literally shook the foundations of a network...which in the end was forced to respond.

What does this suggest? It suggests a) there is indeed a role that blogs can (and did) play in shoving stories that the mainstream media didn’t find interesting enough or were skeptical of into the mainstream media, b) blogs can take on the role of a collective cross examiner to vet information in record time, pooling expertise, with the speed of a typepad keyboard.

But this still does NOT mean blogs are going to replace newspapers.

Why? We still don't have an answer as to whether if there is something highly detrimental to the Bush administration, a leading GOPer, or the Republican Party, the often partisan blogs will respond or simply ignore or defend the negative information.

In other words, we know there is a voice from bloggers that during this campaign seemed more dominant on the right than on the left. But will there be a BLOG VOICE that is applied as a watchdog EQUALLY to BOTH SIDES? The jury is still out on this -- except on that disgraceful Armstrong Williams case where the commentator took money from the administration to pitch its line. Williams was denounced by bloggers on all sides with only a few making excuses for him (there was NO EXCUSE).

So we've seen the inklings something transcending partisanship. On the other hand, many blogs go overboard by suggesting that reporters and editors in mainstream news organizations are somehow monolithic, trying to find a way to bias a story against Bush, or even well-organized.

As someone who worked overseas writing for a variety of newspapers and on the staff of two city newspapers owned by healthy newspaper chains, nothing could be further from the truth. Editors make judgments in a rush. Reporters juggle several stories a day under tight deadlines. Any editor or reporter who would simply ignore a story for partisanship would be nuts since how your story is placed in the newspaper or on a broadcast is how you advance to another level in your profession. No one I worked with would have CARED if a monster story impacted the right or left; if it was a good, solid story, they would have run with it. And if they simply ignored it because they agreed or liked a possible story subject, they'd be working night police shift for a while.

The News Beast must be fed. Some bloggers are as contemptuous of news professionals as some news professionals are contemptuous of bloggers. I read about one blogger who basically said journalists are not intelligent. REALLY? How MANY does he know? If you vetted that statement you'd probably find not too many; certainly anyone who has talked to any editorial board (even if you disagree with it) or editor (even if you don't like the paper) will usually find someone who knows an awful lot and agonizes over the choices presented to the public.

But as I said in my previous answer, our press seems on a downward slide. I still prefer to read my old haunting ground The Christian Science Monitor -- a stand-back-and analyze newspaper that stylistically a European newspaper, perhaps because its staff has journalists from many countries.

And that's the issue: if blogs...which necessarily reflect the writer’s personality...can get info out quickly on issues, they'll play a key role. If they degenerate into sites that merely attack and name call politicians (and other bloggers) they'll be fringe info sources. 

You can see any number of bloggers now inching out into the field of original reporting -- it's highly admirable. And if you read as many blogs as I do (the blogroll on my site is NOT just for show), you see that the vast majority are written by people who care enough to take the time to share ideas. Most are into ISSUES, even if they are anchored in a partisan viewpoint. And as far as partisan viewpoints are concerned, as Seinfeld says: "Not that there's anything wrong with that.”

3. You mention living and working overseas in India and Spain. How do you think your views are different now than they would be if you had not lived overseas?

I learned a lot not just from being overseas, but because before I do anything I read a ton of materials and try to learn as much as I can about it. In the case of India, I started studying it as a student at Colgate. I read everything I could on India. I studied the culture. While over there as a student, I struggled to learn Hindi (and have only retained some swear words). I continued my own intensive personal study while going for my Master in Journalism. Then I went back to India.

I did the same intense private study when I was getting ready to write on Bangladesh, Cyprus, and Spain. So I went into something after reading a ton of material.

But that's all CONCEPTUAL. It helped prepare me for the context in which I would be living. Once I got to a destination, it was a new lesson every day.

I think I'm TOTALLY different than I would have been if I had not lived overseas. I was always good at looking at things from someone else's point of view, and when I lived in South Asia I could at least understand where Indians and Bangladeshis where coming from -- their rationale for feeling the Nixon administration had "tilted" to Pakistan etc. I could understand their resentments, their paranoia -- not agree with them but I understood their perceptions. Ditto in Spain.

I lived in Spain in the last month's death throes of the Franco administration. I covered that and the transition to democracy and left Spain in December 1978. Spain taught me about an alphabet-soup of political parties and how democracy can't be taken for granted. To help me learn Spanish I watched the dubbed version of Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" -- a talkie -- 13 times. (I did a piece on it for The Christian Science Monitor and a "sidebar" for Newsweek's international edition in 1975 as a short-term stringer). During Chaplin's famous speech on liberty, which Americans today often feel is corny; Spaniards -- who could not see this film until Franco's death because it had been banned by the dictator -- stood up and cheered. Some openly cried.

So my answer is: all of these experiences helped me develop an ability to take myself out of my own political positions (and I do have them), take a long hard look at an issue or an event, then view it from different perspectives, and write about different aspects of it. This "on the other hand" is hated by some who want clear, no nuanced opinions...but that's the way I see things.

Another thing: in writing as a freelance overseas for some 7 years, I had to write for publications that had differing styles. This served me well when I returned to the U.S. I'd say the most pivotal event for me professionally was writing for The Christian Science Monitor, which had high standards of fairness. I also visited the Monitor editors in Boston for talks and for years they were my mentors. Even if you did an opinion piece for the CSM, it could never be name-calling rant. It HAD to be issues. I would be a totally different person professionally and personally if I had not had the privilege of living overseas -- and writing for the Monitor. I was lucky.

4. In your responses to the questions about blogging, you mention that you exceeded your goals for your first year.  By most measures, The Moderate Voice would be regarded as a phenomenal success for a new blog, with a very high ranking in the blog ecosystem and winning an award from Wizbang.  What do you think are the origins of the success of The Moderate Voice?

Actually, I think of the blog a modest success. It's a modest blog that started off with modest aspirations. I had 10 hits on the official starting date of January 1, 2004 and decided unless it was at a certain realistic goal by the end of 2004 I'd just walk away from it. It is NOT yet a big blog and may never be for a reason: I am not part of any party so I don't have that built in "team" that will read me, no matter what. In fact, I periodically lose big chunks of readers (left and right) when they don't like my stand on a hot issue. I think, though, that it's done better than I thought due to several reasons:

For one thing, after trying it several ways, I did it my way and -- for better or worse -- not the way anyone expected me to do it.

Also, I truly like differing ideas (within reason; I would not link to an Al Qaeda site on my blogroll). And people on the left, center and right know that I get fired up when I read a good, solid post with a good argument that makes me think and re-evaluate. Also, I don't care how many hits a blog gets or if the blogger is very young or very old. Everyone gets the same respect -- which they ALL deserve for making the commitment to put their necks on the line by putting their views out for the world to see on the Internet.

And, importantly, I am finding that there is a core readership from all parts of the ideological spectrum that visit my site and like it because it's not into name-calling (unless I can't resist a sarcastic post on a subject).

In fact, the only blogs I won't read is when I am personally attacked. . The reason: there are more than a million blogs out there and why waste your time with the ones that are in mired personal attack mode?

I myself did a double take when I saw my ranking on the ecosystem, but it's perhaps also due to the fact that I started my blog specifically to write about a wide variety of things, not just to do reference posts and linkfests. And I think that because I'm not part of the Democratic or Republican cheering sections -- which does NOT mean that I don't take strong stands on issues, by the way -- I have been linked more that I ever thought I would.

But overall, I think it's because I do respect people who take the time to write blogs -- while at the same time I want no part of blogs that think a personal attack is better than an argument on an idea. I might indulge in "snark" but I never attack other blogs or bloggers and most of my posts are centered on an idea or idea. Some are silly (to have fun) but some extremely serious and reflect attempts to do serious analysis. I also am now very interested in appearance -- trying to find punchy graphics. People say they feel very comfortable on the site the way it's set up; several emailers say they consider it "home." But it still has a ways to go in terms of hits; its influence may be greater than its hits.

5. You have a broad definition of "modest success"... However, you do have a real life outside of blogging, part of which is your career as an entertainer. One reader had some questions about your work as a ventriloquist: What kind of dummies do you use? What personalities do they have? Will one of the dummies start his own blog?

I definitely do have a life outside blogging. I love the work I do as a ventriloquist where I have two goals: a) entertain in all shows, b) also TEACH kids and young people in my school and library shows. I do everything from camps, school assemblies, corporate shows, fairs (I will be doing fairs in Wyoming, Montana and Nebraska this summer with some more still possible), festivals, shopping mall "Kids Club" shows and was on NBC's SPY TV (the famous episode where the ventriloquist leaves the room and the dummy comes "alive" and asks a four year old boy to help him run away from the mean old ventriloquist). I will (and do) travel anywhere for a show. Even though California is my base I've done shows in Vermont, Georgia, Texas, Washington State, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, and elsewhere.

You can see a (older) picture of me and some of my dummies by going to my existing website www.familyentertainer.com and the still under construction redesign at www.joegandelman.com (which will be switched over to the other address when it's done). I use extremely costly wooden dummies designed by world-famous figure maker (which means dummy maker) Chuck Jackson.

The main character John Raven can stick out his tongue, wiggle his ears, and twist his head around -- which suggests he'd be a perfect Presidential candidate.

I do a different kind of "vent" show. Most people stick to one or two characters. My fair show this past summer in places such as Jackson Hole, Wyoming and Corpus Christie, Texas included a huge cast -- up to 9 segments at some of them. I use a wooden genie head in the box (a-la Senor Wences) and also various puppets which include a baby elephant (who squirts water out of his trunk and suddenly sops the kids in a highly popular segment), a seal puppet who balances a ball on his nose, a screaming/sweet baby puppet (he has two faces which means when he grows up he'll run for Congress), a talking plant, a nervous turkey, three dogs (including a grumpy bulldog), a Martian, a drawing board that comes alive when I draw a picture, etc.

Each has its own personality. Someone recently told me my show reminds them of the old Jack Benny radio show (before my time) and television show (just barely in my time) in the sense that all of the characters give me a hard time and they get all of the good laughs. The main character John Raven always bugs me by making a joke, wisecrack or an insult. I do not do X material but can do double entendre material a-la "Married With Children" if requested (in one key routine). Each character has its own personality. For instance, the bulldog screams "Waddya laughing at?" like a bully and audiences love it. The turkey is nervous if you talk about food. The elephant is only 2 so after he squirts the kids and I demand an apology and he says he doesn't know what it is I insist "Give it to me!"  -- and he does (in the face).

Will one of my dummies start his own blog?

No. There are already a lot of blogs written by dummies.

And so it went...

Joe Gandelman has written his perspective on the Holocaust, in memory of the 60th anniversary of the capture of Auschwitz.

"This was my family," he said, slowly opening the photo album. Then he started pointing to a host of aging photos showing large, smiling groups of people of all ages.

"He's dead -- killed by the Nazis. She's dead -- killed by the Nazis. This little boy? Hitler killed him, too.And this little girl." And so it went, as he showed his grandson the photos of family members who had been murdered by the Nazi regime in concentration camps. Some had simply disappeared.

And still... some feel it is appropriate to call for the deaths of groups of people because of their politics, their religion, their philosophy...

Never forget...

Yet we already have.

And so it goes...

Some thoughts on human nature...

...take them as commentary on whatever you will, that is what happens regardless of what I write. No matter how much I try to make myself clear, some people insist upon vewing things through their own lenses and maintain they are both unbiased and completely correct...

History never looks like history when you are living through it.    -John W. Gardner

Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom
   -Bertrand Russell

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
   -Isaac Asimov

Brutality begins where skill ends.
   -Egon von Neindorff

If we see cruelty or wrong that we have the power to stop, and do nothing, we make ourselves share in the guilt.
   -Anna Sewell

Ignorance, when voluntary, is criminal, and a man may be properly charged with that evil which he neglected or refused to learn how to prevent.
   -Dr. Samuel Johnson

Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood.
   -H. L. Mencken

Honesty is a good thing, but it is not profitable to its possessor unless it is kept under control.
   -Don Marquis

Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
   -Eleanor Roosevelt

The average person thinks he isn't.
   -Father Larry Lorenzoni

In the end, we are all worm-food.
   -John M. Grant

There is one certain means by which I can be sure never to see my country's ruin -- I will die in the last ditch.
   -William Of Orange

Draw your own conclusions...

...after reading this, just be sure your response is not a knee-jerk emotional one. Please think about it a while, filtering out the provocative tone of the article and consider the broader implications, including the ironic parallels.

Pennywit, who supplied the link, has his own question.

My question is similar, but phrased slightly differently:

Is this really how we want our government to work?

Deep question of the week

Just what exact was in those Scooby-snacks, anyway?

Thought for the last Sunday in January

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
   -Euripides

Strange bedfellows...

From ZDnet.com:

Backed by a diverse coalition of influential groups, including the Bush administration's top lawyer and the Christian Coalition, the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America on Monday asked the court to overturn previous rulings that have let file-swapping software companies such as Grokster operate with only minimal legal restrictions.

In their briefs, the groups called for a new legal test that could hold companies responsible for their customers' copyright infringement, even if they have no direct control over that activity. Allowing businesses "predominately" devoted to copyright infringement to operate has disrupted a traditional legal balance between technological advance and copyrights, they said.

From what I can recall, usually the Christian Coalition is calling the products produced by the RIAA and MPAA very destructive to "families" as defined by the Christian Coalition. Obviously, there's more here than meets the eye when reading the headline or leading paragraphs of the article. From the second page:

In addition to the solicitor general's office, a group of conservative, family and Christian organizations that are often deeply critical of Hollywood and record label releases joined the anti-P2P chorus.

Those groups, which included the Christian Coalition, the Concerned Women for America, Morality in Media and others, wrote that the lower-court decisions relieving file-swapping companies of legal liability could lead to a "proliferation of anonymous, decentralized, unfiltered and untraceable peer-to-peer networks that facilitate crimes against children and that frustrate law enforcement efforts to detect and investigate these crimes."

Let's set aside the inflammatory language regarding "facilitate crimes against children" for a moment and think about this.

Ultimately, the RIAA and MPAA would like to hold both file-sharing companies (making software or hosting file-sharing services) liable for the illegal acts of those who use their software or services.

The Christian Coalition is a right-wing group that among other principles endorses the concept of personal responsibility, incidentally an ideal in which I believe.

Yet...

The Christan Coalition is now supporting an effort that is aimed at holding ones other than those actually violating the law responsible for the illegal acts.

Pursuing this logic, after some recent reports on the potential use of weblogs to as a "gateway to pedophiles" we should therefore declare weblogs illegal because they have the potential of aiding in the commission of heinous crimes.

This is the same logic that leads to prosecuting handgun manufacturers for the crimes committed by the users of handguns.

You can continue the exercise in reductio ad absurdum yourself...

So much for the emphasis on personal responsibility.

Why is it that the groups that proclaim the importance of personal responsibility are also the ones trying to remove the freedoms and opportunities to make decisions that require personal responsibility?

Futility

In an odd synchronicity that likely does not merit close examination, upon reading recent posts by Aaron Swartz on his life as a college freshman, I see many of the same feelings I had when I started college over 23 years ago. I'm sure the emotions stirred up within me are not in small measure affected by the music I am listening to, a random playlist of my highest rated songs on iTunes. Music from that time in my life 23 years ago, music from only last month, music from all times in between, randomly chosen based upon ratings I gave it without any further thought than if I once liked the song. It makes me wonder if the new technologies which increase the interconnectedness of us all (weblogs, email, etc.) and increase our access to music, news, video, and any other media help those who feel disconnected from the rest of humanity any less lonely.

I doubt it, after reading what Aaron has to say. He seems to have many of the same thoughts and reactions I did 23 years ago.

There are still times, even now, I feel disconnected from the human race, even after 23 years past that first shock of college, 23 years of heartache and heartbreak, 23 years of meeting different people and learning to understand them even if they didn't think like me, living in five different places on two continents, spending a significant amount of time on three different continents, learning new things both related and unrelated to my job, discovering technology and science not known by anyone before and telling the world of these new things in conferences and technical papers, 23 years of relearning lessons first learned thousands of years ago in eons of heartbreaks repeated.

Years of personal turmoil, years of wars, years of incredible growth in both economics and technology, years of change that make movies and novels of even 10 years ago seem as "quaint" and "outdated" as a certain individual in our current government labeled the Geneva Conventions.

Over two decades...

Twenty-three years is slightly over half my lifetime ago, and 23 years from now I will be eligible for retirement (assuming no radical changes in the law...). Yet... I'm still 15 years too young to be called "middle aged".

I recently posted a quote:

Only age understands regret.
   -J. Michael Straczynski

While I fully accept my mistakes, and I understand that at every point I made the best decisions I could given both what I knew and understood at the time leavened with what wisdom I had earned, regret still haunts my darker hours like the ghosts of those loved and departed haunt any gathering of old friends. That simile may be peculiarly apt in my case for reasons to difficult to describe here. Regret unmerited, but felt all the same.

Will I be able to withstand the regret after another 23 years?

This last December, a person very important to me sent me an email. The person who wrote this message is a poet, a very good one in my opinion. I've often thought of posting some of her poetry here, but I don't want to presume she would want it, and I haven't ever asked (no, I don't know why...). The entire email she sent:

subject: saw the worst thing yesterday...

there was a struck deer in the roadway... he was rocking back and forth and trying to get up.

unfortunately, his back was broken.

futility.

Some days, this encapsulates life for me, for I see and understand.

Thousands, perhaps millions, every day, of tragic vignettes that have no larger meaning beyond what those who witness them give. Witnesses who are all too mortal themselves.

Lives lost...

Visions erased...

Dreams shattered...

People forgotten...

Hearts broken...

Hopeless striving...

Broken-backed...

Unwitnessed...

Unremembered...

Never ending...

Always forgotten...

And so it goes...

Futility

.
.
.

Then, my stubborn streak kicks in, and I refuse to give up, regardless if the entire universe and even God are all against me.

Though there are times I wished I could, I cannot give up.

I don't know why.

Just another day (part II)...

There has been a startling silence from the weblogs on my usual reading list about the 60th anniversary of the "liberation" of Auschwitz, if you can call the occupation and subsequent decades of ostensible Communist rule "liberation"...

There has been one exception, but unfortunately, that exception has been more to make a point regarding politics in the US rather than a more universal statement.

Never forget...

Never forget...

But we already have...

Millions upon millions were murdered because they were easy to blame by those who wanted power. The same ones who had been blamed by Christendom for more than a thousand years before 1930.

Never forget...

Yet, we have, some forgot long ago:

Rawanda

Sudan

Somalia

Cambodia

North Korea

Soviet Union

People's Republic of China

The list goes on and on...

Never forget...

Millions upon millions have died since 1945 for no better reason than that given for those annihilated by the Nazis, because of their heritage and their faith.

Never forget...

Even now, there are those in the United States who call for destroying all those who proclaim themselves Muslim.

Never forget...

But we already have...

For many, all it took was one day, one terrible day, September 11, 2001.

How short our memories of the teachings of the One we call our Savior, how long our memories of our injuries.

Never forget...

But we already have...

It is human nature to hate "the other", and it is only the very rare leader who rises above human nature to proclaim "do not hate the other, love him instead." Many of the followers of One of the men (whom many proclaim was the Son of God), who was crucified almost 2000 years ago because the ones with some small power at the time felt threatened by Him and rejected His teachings, those who even though they say they are His most vocal adherents do not truly follow His teachings, are instead are some of the loudest clamorers for the death of "the other."

Never forget...

But we already have...

It is so easy to say "kill those who kill us", so easy to forget when we are offended, when we are attacked.

Never forget....

But we already have...

And so it goes...

Just another day...

As referred by Pennywit, from The Washington Post:

The soldiers had multiple tasks on this day. In addition to hunting insurgents and searching houses, they were to help get out the vote for Sunday's national elections. For the next three hours, soldiers armed with assault rifles and election fliers moved warily through al-Whada's muddy streets, trying to get Iraqis to embrace democracy.

The inherent danger of the mission was driven home at 3:30 p.m. A single shot rang out, and 1st Lt. Nainoa K. Hoe, 27, the popular leader of the 2nd Platoon, C Company, 3rd Battalion of the 21st Infantry Regiment, fell dead in the street.

"Treat him! Treat him!" screamed Staff Sgt. Steve Siglock, one of his closest friends. The shot that killed Hoe on Saturday was followed within seconds by a blizzard of gunfire aimed at his exposed platoon. It was already too late for Hoe, but his men stepped directly into the gunfire in a desperate attempt to save him while fending off the unseen insurgents.

On the campaign trail in Iraq, U.S. troops are almost alone. Violence has kept away the election monitors, international peacekeepers and nongovernmental organizations that normally perform the basic tasks of electioneering in nascent democracies. With not even the candidates out on the streets, the role of getting out the vote has fallen to thousands of infantrymen like Hoe, soldiers who are menaced by the possibility of instant death.

Just another day to most of us.

But not to all.

And so it goes...

A fitting memorial

Doug Mc. at The Reality Stick has informed me of a tribute that is so fitting words cannot describe it to someone not already "in the know."

Douglas Adams has had an asteroid named after him, a celestial body chosen for very particular reasons.

Doug Mc. also includes in his post one of my favorite quotes of all time:

In the beginning the Universe was created.

This has made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

   -Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Some days, to me that says enough...

A forgotten controversy

With the Presidential election, the upcoming election in Iraq, the Iraq occupation and the associated violence, and the furor du jour, older controversies fall off the radar and are forgotten, even if they haven't arrived at their denouement.

One of those controversies has broad implications for the role of the state and federal governments in decisions that are very personal and painful. This is the dispute over the future of Terri Schiavo, who suffered brain damage when her heart stopped temporarily due to the effects of an eating disorder. Mrs. Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, states that she never wanted to be kept alive artificially. In this case, she is kept alive with a feeding tube, because she cannot swallow, and Mr. Schiavo requested that the feeding tube be removed. Mrs, Schiavo's parents contested this request, and ultimately Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the legislature passed "Terri's Law" aimed at preventing the removal of the feeding tube. Now the US Supreme Court has refused to reinstate this law, which was overturned by a lower court, and Mrs. Schiavo's parents have asked Mr. Schiavo to divorce their daughter so they can have control over her fate.

The parents contend that their daughter still has brain function and personality, and the use of a feeding tube seems less like "artificial means" of maintaining life as a full respirator would. These are just some of the factors that make this case so hazy and not clear-cut.

This story has so many facets to it that they are difficult to even list:

Right to life versus right to die

Who becomes the most appropriate guardian of an adult who is brain damaged and can no longer make decisions

What leeway does the guardian have in making decisions

When is it appropriate for others to recourse to the judicial system to contest the decisions of the guardian

Is it appropriate at all for the executive branch and legislative branch of the government to intervene directly at all in individual cases like this

In the end, the only certainty that comes out of this is that there is a lot of pain caused for all those who care about Mrs. Schiavo, and regardless of the ultimate resolution, this has been an unmitigated tragedy.

A thought from long ago...

...that is still relevant today, especially for those who feel the mainstream media is "too biased", here is a notation from the past (note the date):

The pencil of the Holy Ghost hath laboured more indescribing the afflictions of Job than the felicties of Solomon.
   -Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626)

Things haven't changed, even though it's been 400 years.

Oooooooooouuuuuuuuuuch....

I went skiing for the first time in a couple of years today.

I'm really, really, really, REALLY out of condition, so exerting myself at a high altitude isn't really a good idea, especially since I just celebrated the end of my 40th trip around the sun.

(An aside here, the French can't believe I weigh 185 pounds, they needed to know to set my ski binding release correctly... Apparently, to them I don't look fat, and since all Frenchmen are skinny [I can't find shirts that fit in the shoulders, and let's not even mention the pants...] I'm supposed to weigh around 145-150 pounds. I haven't weighed that little since I was in high school, over 20 years ago. No wonder the French surrender all the time, they're too damn skinny to fight...)

Despite being out of condition, and two years out of practice, I managed to complete several expert-level runs today (they label them a bit differently here, green to blue to red to black rather than green to blue to black to double-black in the US) and I only had one fall where I lost a ski, and that was on the first run of the day. I managed to do several runs on black (double-black in the US) in an avalanche zone (apparently they're a bit more casual about that here... given the number of avalanche remains I saw from the ski lifts, and the number of people I saw ducking under the barriers to the runs closed because of the avalanche risk) without wiping out.

Staying vertical all day after my first run (on an expert trail) is a Good Thing.

Unfortunately, it took its toll.

The aspirin and single-malt Scotch are starting to kick in now, so the pain is easing, but tomorrow is going to be the biggest bitch I've had to deal with since I got divorced.

.
.
.

I have plans to go skiing again Saturday.

Guest posting

I'm guest posting for the next few days at The Moderate Voice, while Joe Gandelman travels without a laptop computer to earn money in the real world.

I hope Joe can find a way to get online somehow. I think if he goes too long without posting something, his head might explode...

Two years

Random Fate has existed in one incarnation or another (Blogspot and a couple of hosting services) for two years. I started it a couple of days before the Space Shuttle Columbia broke up over northern Texas. I heard about it on the radio while I was experimenting with the Blogspot interface to upload images.

Two years, and something in the neighborhood of 1500 posts (not counting the Blogspot posts, which are lost now due to some kind of server thing, although Blogspot claims the weblog still exists in their system).

I've lived in France for 9 of those 24 months.

It's been an interesting two years.

Lifted from the comments...

...where John of Argghhh! is having a debate over the words on a particular bumper sticker, comes my quote for the day:

It is always "My country, right or wrong!" but it's never "My country is never wrong."
   -SangerM

I recommend you go read both John's original post and the debate in the comments, where there is a fine example of having a reasonable debate, and a good discussion on what is reasonable dissent.

I just had to post a link to this...

...from Slashdot:

Kahle vs. Ashcroft concerns the constitutionality of changing from an opt-in copyright system (which existed for almost 200 years in the US) to the current opt-out system, where every doodle on a piece of paper is copyrighted for 95 years. Yes, they used the word doodle in their appeal.

The word doodle in a legal document?

I like it....

Readership up slightly, ecosystem ranking waaaay down...

pe-dan-tic (adj.) - Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.

Yep... that's me...

...dry...

...usually well-reasoned...

...but no fun to read...

Oh, well... C'est la vie, as they say the world around, not just here in France.

I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam, as a certain sailor who liked spinach used to say. I shouldn't try to change just to get more readers.

Perhaps I'll grow beyond being pedantic and actually gain a wide audience by being interesting and enjoyable to read.

Until then, I do appreciate those of you who are willing to continue reading. Perhaps one day I can actually become an engaging and interesting writer and reward you for your patience.

Annoyances

OK... so... the light bulb in my floor lamp burned out about a month ago. It's been about 9 months since I bought it, so no problem, buy another one.

The new light bulb just burned out after an all too brief lifetime of four weeks, and I haven't bought a plethora of lights to account for the fact that apartments here in France have very few fixtures left when the previous tenants move out. It's now dark... and I had to buy a space heater today to account for the fact that the heater in my apartment went out and I cannot get someone here to fix it until next week. I don't muck with gas and electricity in the same appliance, especially when all the warnings are written in French. This has not been a good week on the infrastructure front for me.

I'm sitting here typing this by the light of my flat panel monitor. The only portable light I have is a desk lamp I use to keep the kitchen lit enough for me to make sure I'm not cooking the cat when I'm fixing my dinner.

To say I'm annoyed at the light burning out after a month of use is putting it mildly. Unfortunately, I do not have the words to express my annoyance properly in the local language. I'll have to resort to what they would say across the Channel:

Bloody Hell...

A chance to say "Thank you"

The Department of Defense has set up a web site where you can add your name to a thank you note.

Thanks to The Commissar for the link.

It is winter...

...so I'm not going to complain about the cold outside, but unfortunately, the heater in my apartment here isn't working. It's a single unit that heats water for regular use on demand and heats water that is circulated in the radiators to heat the apartment. I accidentally let the pressure in the radiator loop drop below the recommended range, and the safety mechanism kicked in and stopped the burner from tripping on to heat too little water. Now that I've refilled the loop, the burner still does not trip on, so the only time I get heat is when I run hot water, because the same burner is used to heat the radiator loop and the regular water.

Brrrrr...

It's in the upper 20s outside right now, and in the upper 50s in the apartment. Time to go buy an electric heater until I can figure out how to fix the heater or get someone here to look at it.

Thoughts for a January Monday

A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular.
   -Adlai Stevenson

The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.
   -Lady Bird Johnson

Live among men as if God beheld you; speak to God as if men were listening.
   -Seneca

Work and struggle and never accept an evil that you can change.
   -Andre Gide

An experiment...

...and a likely futile attempt to increase the traffic here.

I'll be trying to do a podcast of what I feel are the best posts I've put here at Random Fate, once a week, with at least one commentary or opinion post, and one "geek cool" or "science & technology" post. What I want to know is this: is anyone interested in hearing me read what I've written? And, do you think it might get more people interested in reading what I write?

Discounting the readers who may delete all cookies when they close their browsers, I have somewhere around 45 returning visitors a day. That translates into probably around 75 to 100 regular readers (with generous assumptions), and those numbers make me wonder if the effort I put into this is worth it. I do put a lot of work into what I write here, not all of it visible. A lot of what I write goes into the oblivion of the virtual trash can, edited away into the bin of wasted effort. I've finally assembled all the software I need to podcast, now I wonder if it's worth the risk of sticking my ass out there to be ridiculed.

Yes, 75 people is a lot in real terms, more than any average person would have before weblogs, but I want more, especially given the audience I see others who I feel are far less thoughtful or thought-provoking get. Tell me what you think.

For some biting satire...

...that I find humorous but may not necessarily be funny to you, James Wolcott has some acerbic observations on the pronouncements of certain prominent figures in the protestant Christian community.

Warning: Don't read if you're not willing to think outside your own head. But then, that could be a general statement, don't READ if you aren't willing to think about any viewpoint but your own.

At times, I wish I had the guts and the ability to write things like this...

All I can say is...

...SpongeBob Squarepants is a HELL of a lot less irritating than Barney, believe me, I had to watch enough of SpongeBob during my Christmas visit to the US to know...

...and in some respects he is a classic tragic figure, but I won't go into that here.

I'll simply point out that some people need to buy a ticket on the clue train to reality. The left-wing has moonbats, but the right-wing somehow manages to match their idiocy to fully earn the name nut-jobs.

No long missives from me for a bit...

...I'm working on three patents and preparing for the class I'll be teaching at a local college here in Grenoble on some aspects of semiconductor manufacturing.

My brain is tired.

More discussion, more fallacies?

A discussion of fallacies of logic by Jason Alston is posted at In Search of Utopia. What makes it interesting is an analysis of a graphic posted at Booker Rising and the argument presented by that graphic in its single sentence.

In an odd synchronicity, the topmost post at Booker Rising is a quote that has an inherent logical contradiction that was likely posted to illustrate that contradiction.

As a fictional character who was presented as the personification of the struggle between logic and emotion might say, fascinating.

Some thoughts for a lazy Sunday

It is not a bad idea to get in the habit of writing down one's thoughts. It saves one having to bother anyone else with them.
   -Isabel Colegate

Sometimes people carry to such perfection the mask they have assumed that in due course they actually become the person they seem.
   -W. Somerset Maugham

Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.
   -Oscar Wilde

The secret to life is meaningless unless you discover it yourself.
   -W. S. Maugham

Light posting today...

...because I'll be skiing.

Boy, it sure is nice to live within driving distance of Olympic quality ski runs!!!

UPDATE: I developed some kind of cold overnight and didn't sleep very much. I'm passing on skiing today and hope to go next weekend.

An observation from Canada

Alan, a Canadian, left a long, excellent comment to a post at Argghhh!, where John points to a discussion by Silfray Hraka on selective quotations. At the risk of falling prey to selectively quoting, here is the key point that I liked from the comment at Argghhh!:

There must be a better outcome than the triumph of 51% over 49%. It really can't be enough to say the 49% are now wrong anymore than that other 49% was in 1992 when your Federal goverance was reversed and the then minority was subject to ridicule. I fear, however, if the attitude of that caller is indicative of the common mood. When asked what he would give to foster greater unity he said he would give "my value to the liberals as well as a place at my church" - of course only if they would sub-ordinate themselves. Little dignity and individual autonomy in that. How would a person who saw things in the 49% be the slightest bit attracted to that pew? The core of mutual disrespect is a bad situation.

In other words, if we refuse to respect those who don't see the world the same as we do, how can expect things to be any different than they are now, with little discussion but instead opponents shouting past each other, accomplishing nothing but adding noise and anger?

Read the entire comment (it's the first one after John's post), but be sure to read the discussion that John pointed to first which is also well worth reading.

A brand-new quote

A statment lifted from Brian in a comment he posted at Dean's World that I think bears repeating:

Everyone has a bias. If you don't notice it in someone, it's because your bias is similar.

Think about it...

Some remarkably good news from Iraq

From The Washington Post:

An overwhelming majority of Iraqis continue to say they intend to vote on Jan. 30 even as insurgents press attacks aimed at rendering the elections a failure, according to a new public opinion survey.

The poll, conducted in late December and early January for the International Republican Institute, found 80 percent of respondents saying they were likely to vote, a rate that has held roughly steady for months.

The 64 percent who said they were "very likely" to vote represented a dip of about 7 percentage points from a November survey, while those "somewhat likely" to vote increased 5 points.

Western specialists involved with election preparations said they were struck by the determination and resilience of ordinary Iraqis as they anticipate their country's first free election in half a century.

The terrorist insurgents' tactics have been obvious for most of the occupation, recently evolving into creating an atmosphere of fear to keep people from voting. It is remarkable that there are still such high numbers who say they intend to vote despite all the violence. Hopefully the feelings reflected in the opinion poll results bear fruit and enough people vote in Iraq to give the citizens of that country a feeling that the outcome of the election is legitimate. I am concerned about how the feeling within Iraq might be regarding the legitimacy of the resulting governmental assembly regardless of actual election turnout due to reports I have seen that a majority of Iraqis do not know who the different groupings running in the election are or what those groups stand for.

At this point, all we can do is hope for the best.

---

Link through The Moderate Voice.

Penetrating insight of the day...

...from Jeff Jarvis:

The big problem with Rather is not bias. It's foolishness. Always has been.

It's not limited to Dan Rather, but applies to his entire profession, and far beyond...

---

Thanks to The Moderate Voice for the link.

Just because it isn't on the news doesn't mean it's not happening

David Anderson, at In Search of Utopia, tells us that the tsunami aftermath in Asia is not the only place where people are dying because of natural disaster. A flood has occurred on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica.

David has links to the local Red Cross and the International Red Cross to donate for assistance to the region.

Something I forgot on Monday

Molotov, at Booker Rising, reminds us that it correctly is written the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and tells us to recall the black American religious tradition from which he came.

Remembering origins is just as important as pointing to results in our learning and understanding.

Some thoughts to ponder at the end of a hump day, or any day

If we see no other nation but our own, we do not give mankind a fair chance...
   -Lord Byron

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him.
   -Galileo Galilei

The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes of mind.
   -William James

No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.
   -John Donne

Amid all the sound and fury, most of which will be pointless or wasted, a thought...

Only age understands regret.
   -J. Michael Straczynski

Within the memories of those still with us

Here is a story about choices and challenging the status quo, from the point of view of both a child and the adult that grew from that child.

This was only 40 years ago. It is a story of how hatred resulted in violence, hatred of people who did not share the same skin color, and the bravery of people in the face of that unreasoning hatred.

Where will the hatred we hold now towards those who don't conform exactly to what we believe lead?

Challenging conventional wisdom and the status quo

In my post below entitled "Some thoughts ...on objectivity and centrism", I tried to convey how it is important to challenge ideas, even if the end result of that challenge is to make your beliefs stronger rather than changing them. I tried to use my description of the path that led me to feel this is important, a path that involves my work in research, but unfortunately some misinterpreted my point and got hung up on the probability clouds that I discussed. Let me state it simply:

Challenging conventional wisdom is important in any area (science and technology, politics, religion, whatever) to make progress.

A good example of this comes to mind in wake of the holiday yesterday. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. challenged the conventional wisdom of meeting violence with violence and hatred with hatred, and in his leadership more progress was made in civil rights than likely would have been made without his challenge to rise above human nature of an eye for an eye.

And the world is likely a better place because he challenged the status quo and the conventional wisdom.

Another example arises from the birth of the United States. People often forget what was expressed so eloquently by Benjamin Franklin on how the Founders were truly risking their lives in their challenge of the status quo, "We must all hang together, or we will all surely hang separately." These men were in serious danger of losing their lives and being hung for treason against the crown because of their belief in the necessity of challenging the status quo of being British colonies and treated as such (that is, no representation in Parliament). In what is probably the supreme irony in the decline of the British Empire, if they had simply given the American Colonies representation in Parliament, the American Revolution would have been short circuited completely. Instead, the defenders of the status quo fought to their own (and their heir's) detriment.

Does this mean the status quo is always wrong?

No.

Generally, there are good reasons for the status quo to have developed, and generally the status quo arose out of answers to the challenges made by previous generations to the status quo that existed in their time.

Dean Esmay is challenging the conventional wisdom on the AIDS/HIV relationship. Given the heavy involvement of special-interest groups creating a hugely politicized atmosphere that working scientists are not accustomed to deal with, it is very likely that the speed at which understanding the actual origins and treatments of the disease have been distorted (accelerated through the disproportionately high level of funding given the actual numbers affected, and delayed due to the politicized nature of even the scientific debate). Dean's challenge is entirely appropriate and should be taken seriously, although it is my opinion that Dean's tone has been just a wee bit antagonistic in his assertions.

I am examining the data that Dean presented in his case for "Falsifying the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis" and reviewing both statistics and what I understand of epidemiology. I do not necessarily agree with Dean that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has been completely falsified, from what I have extracted out of the data to date, I think the situation is significantly more complex than that presented by either the conventional accepted hypothesis or by the position that Dean advocates. I hope to post my interpretation of the data soon.

Regardless, Dean's challenge to the "conventional wisdom" is merited, just as many challenges are. Meeting those challenges with vitriol and hate is not only unjustified, but often acts to the detriment of those trying to shout down any and all questioning of their beliefs.

A very personal story

We all have our stories, and we all make our choices.

Here is a story about choices that is well worth reading.

---

Hat tip: Christina of Feisty Repartee

Choices

I lived in Memphis on the day Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered. I was only 3 and 1/2 years old, so my memories are not very clear of that time. I know one of my earliest memories is of my father going out the front door to our house with a load of books under his arm, on his way to college.

I have vague memories of a time when everyone seemed uneasy or fearful, and I suspect that was the period right after the assassination of Dr. King, when no one knew if there would be riots or other reaction to the murder.

What I do remember more clearly is the endless discussion in Memphis for years about the site of the murder, turning it into a museum, and the attempts at gaining parole by the murderer. Ultimately, Memphis was changed by this event, and not necessarily for the good. The changes were shaped by the reactions of the leaders in the area, and sadly their responses were not ones that led to recognizing and combating the hatred that led to the murder. Race relations in Memphis have always been strained within my memory, and they still are even now.

We are all products of our pasts, our individual pasts, the collective past of our nation, and the even larger past of the world still rings with effects of events of thousands of years ago. We should try to recognize the good in our pasts, and learn what we can. Dr. King was not a saint, but then none of us are. He was just a man, a man with a powerful idea, a vision that captured imaginations, and he was willing to talk about that vision and truly lead in a way that was away from divisiveness, a path that would have been all too easy for him to take in an age where fire hoses and dogs were set upon peaceful marchers who had the "wrong" skin color. He chose to not respond to hatred and violence with hatred and violence, despite that choice being the easy, natural, and human one. Sometimes we achieve our true humanity when we choose to rise above our human nature and make conscious choices instead of automatic reactions.

Our choices on how to react to events and how to respond to ideas are what make us who we are, and the nature of those reactions and responses reveal in stark clarity at times what kind of people we are. Some choose well, others choose badly. Some make one choice, then have a change of heart and make a different choice. Even doing nothing is itself a choice.

How will our choices look a decade from now?

---

You can find the text to Dr. King's most famous and arguably best speech at Dean's World.

Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has written of his own memories of the day Dr. King was murdered.

A horror from the past

Be afraid...

Be VERY afraid.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

20 Questions Interactive Interview

After my recent blog-interview over at Jennifer's History and Stuff, I thought about how an interactive interview could be done that would be interesting enough to hold attention of readers in the short-attention-span theater of blogworld. I recalled the "20 Questions" interviews that once ran in Playboy Magazine (yes, I looked at the pictures AND read the articles...), and how in some of the interviews the questions seem to be spurred by the responses to prior questions in a way that was a little different than a traditional question-answer interview, possibly because of the format of limiting the interview to twenty questions.

Then yesterday, Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice posted his responses (in two places, his own weblog and at Dean's World) to some questions posed by LaShawn Barber on blogging. I've always enjoyed Joe's writing and found his career as a professional entertainer interesting. What he revealed in response to the questions on blogging about his motivations made him seem like a good victim candidate for my first "20 Questions Interactive Interview".

I will be sending Joe his first question later today, and I will post each question and answer pair as they are finished in a post that will be kept at the top of the site until the interview is completed. Feel free to send suggestions for questions to me at jack -at- randomfate -dot- net, although I reserve the right to not use any suggested questions.

An endorsement

On a significantly different note, I was recently asked for an endorsement, an request that I take very seriously, despite my less than 50 repeat visit a day readership.

My endorsement:

I rarely see the open mind that is displayed by David Anderson on his blog In Search of Utopia. Despite his Progressive bent (which some label "liberal" as if that were an cardinal sin) David is always willing to look at alternate perspectives of issues, including those diametrically opposed to his, without an automatic knee-jerk response. Regardless of the ultimate viewpoint that arises in his blog, David cannot be accused of ignoring views that do not align with his inclinations.

I do not like definitely aligning myself with any viewpoint, liberal or conservative. As a matter of fact, I declined an invitation from David in 2004 to join the Progressive Bloggers Alliance, likely to my detriment in traffic. Despite his openly partisan views, I do feel that David does try to find the best solution for the nation, not just the one that aligns with his preconceived mindset.

This is why I can freely give him the endorsement above and keep him on my blogroll, along with Rob, with whom I more often than not disagree, but I read to ensure that I keep myself honest.

My last word, even if he wants to say more...

Rob has decided that he still doesn't like me.

Tough shit, Rob...

I wonder, though, if a blogger like me who has such a small audience (around than 160 hits a day, and a lot of those looking for a damned beef stroganoff recipe, compared to his 2,500+) can get his ire up so much, is he really so secure in what he believes as he says he is?

Inquiring minds want to know....

...on objectivity and centrism

As can been seen from following the links in the post below, I irked someone by appearing to say that I'm loftily objective while failing to truly be so.

Since I am not the "big-blogger" he is, I cannot hope to win any pissing match with him and his legion of sycophants. However, I will respond in my forum against accusations that I believe are unfair. For example, the apparent belief by Rob that I say I am absolutely objective, when I cannot recall ever saying I am truly objective.

Do I try to be objective?

Yes.

Do I succeed at being objective?

No.

No one is perfectly objective.

I like to call myself a "centrist", not in the least because I despise the thoughtlessness of ideologues, but also because I do constantly strive to look at the data and choose what I perceive to be the best course based upon both my fundamental principles and what I see to be the "common good".

Let me provide some perspective. I work as a scientist. I prefer to call myself a scientist because both my undergraduate and graduate degrees are in Physics, although in the course of my undergraduate career I ended up taking the same number of engineering courses as people with a bachelors degree in electrical engineering. I do medium to long-term research in new materials and structures to be used in VLSI and ULSI integrated circuits for one of the top ten semiconductor companies. I have been with this company for almost nine years, and technology I have worked on is in PalmPilots, cell phones, Apple computers, printers from too many manufacturers to list, pagers, network routers, and any number of other applications. I have four issued patents (that I can definitely recall, there may be one or two I've forgotten), four additional patents currently submitted to the US Patent and Trademark Office, and I have had over 35 publications in technical journals and conferences.

It is a key part of my job to review data with as much objectivity as possible in order to extract out the meaning in that data. Unfortunately, at the scale that I work, the data is not clear and concise. Instead, we are forced to seek small trends hidden within a lot of noise. I have a talent, developed or natural, of being able to look at a large amount of data and extract out trends that are not immediately apparent. This ability has led to my success and to the patents and papers I have to my credit.

It is a key part of my job to be objective in looking at data. Do I always succeed?

No.

No one is perfectly objective.

However...

I do succeed at seeing the actual trends within the mass of noisy data more often than not, even when the data points to a conclusion that is not in alignment with my hypothesis and my bias.

This is why my company was willing to pay all the money needed to move me to France.

Let me provide some additional perspective on how I view the world. A while back, I wrote "I see relationships between quantum mechanics, the pre-election video released by Osama bin Laden, the apparent divide between the Red States and the Blue States, the reaction in blogworld to the retirement of Dan Rather, the controversy over the Marine shooting an apparently surrendered man in Iraq and the reporting of the incident, other aspects of the ongoing fighting in Iraq, the opposition of France to almost every US foreign policy, the election in Ukraine and the consequent increased visibility of the attempt by Vladimir Putin at establishing a Russian version of the Monroe Doctrine, and several other threads in the tangled skein of the world." So much time has passed that it is difficult for me to find the relevant links that would allow me to show how all these disparate things can be related, so instead I will try to give a better idea of how I view the world. Since some seem to take deliberate offense to what I write, it seems useful to show how just because I say "this is wrong" doesn't mean I have not considered all the factors, nor does it mean that I am completely opposed to whatever point of view doesn't perfectly align to what I am saying.

That is the irony. In a recent post I included the following quote:

Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative.
   -Kurt Vonnegut

As is implied in what Vonnegut says, there are more than two kinds of thinking, more than only left or right, more than liberal or conservative, as the media like to pigeonhole everything. It brings to mind something from the immortal bard, Shakespeare, who wrote:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
   -William Shakespeare (Hamlet at I, v) (in another irony given what prompted this post, in a post defending Rob, who is now choosing to attack me for my views...)

However, as unwilling as the extremists in any part of the political landscape are willing to admit:

In real life, unlike in Shakespeare, the sweetness of the rose depends upon the name it bears. Things are not only what they are. They are, in very important respects, what they seem to be.
   -Hubert H. Humphrey

A brief aside here, I use quotes from others because although I want to develop myself into an excellent writer, there are so many ideas and concepts that were so well stated by others that the quotes convey my meaning far better than anything I could write using more words, so as any good writer does, I plagiarize, but at least I give credit where I know who to credit (or blame...).

So, how does quantum mechanics relate to all of this?

One of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that you can know the position or the velocity of a particle to any precision, but you must pay the price of a corresponding loss in precision of knowledge of the other factor. This has profound implications, because our minds are inherently set up to believe in the clockwork universe of Newtonian Physics, where if the variables can be known to any precision, we can absolutely predict the outcome of any action. The uncertainty principle resulted in the realization that at very small scales, the exact position or momentum (velocity) of any particle cannot be known to the ultimate precision that our clockwork-universe minds demand.

In other words, quantum mechanics predicts "clouds of probability" where an electron (or other particle) of a certain energy or speed can be found. This has been shown to be true endlessly, and it was one of the principles that resulted in the development of both the fission and fusion bombs (each of which I have the technical knowledge to construct, if not the materials). The math used to solve the equations needed to build either the fission or fusion bombs was relatively simple enough to be figured out on an old computer that is not even 0.1% as sophisticated as the computer you are using to read this right now.

A $10 pocket calculator is now sufficient to do the minimum of math necessary to build an atomic bomb.

Frightened yet????

I had to understand and reproduce all of this work before they would give my my Master of Science degree in Physics.

Here is another thing to contemplate. I score between 145 and 165 on IQ tests, depending on the test, how much sleep I've had, and how much Scotch I had the night before the test.

Which means that I do well on standardized tests...

It also means I understand the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, statistical dynamics, and on a larger scale, how the world works, and not only when statistics are applied. Ask me again why my average return on my investments has been over 13% for the last 10 years.

In the end, learning both quantum mechanics and statistical dynamics changed the way I view the world. I no longer view anything as black and white, as right or wrong, as any kind of certainty.

Everything is indeterminate, with what we call "the collapse of the wave function of probability" determining the outcome of any experiment. There are any number of thought experiments (Schrodinger's cat, for example) and real-world examples (the double-slit experiment) that show the truth inherent in the uncertainty principle.

How does this relate to the larger scale world, the world not affected directly by the small scale required by the uncertainty principle?

No one, no matter how well informed, can fully know all the factors that go into any situation.

So, in the end, all situations, whether on a personal scale or something that affects thousands or tens of thousands of people, has its own uncertainty associated with it.

You can discuss "moral clarity" all you want, but there is no absolute "moral clarity", because as long as there is more than one single human being existing on this planet, there will be more than one view of morality.

Are all views of morality equal? That is a moral judgment in and of itself, is it not?

So, if you are willing to say, "my way or the highway", then that means you are willing to accept the solution arrived at by the Nazis, that is the final solution, destruction of all who do not believe as you do.

You're not a Nazi, you say? Therefore, you must have some kind of accommodation to those who do not believe exactly as you do then...

Which therefore leads to the realization that you cannot say that your morality must triumph above ALL OTHERS to the extermination of those who do not believe as you do.

This ain't rocket science.

So, ultimately, the "probability cloud" of moral behavior collapses in each individual case to what is believed by those affected directly or those involved through a recourse to public institutions.

This is how everything is related to quantum mechanics.

Regardless of whether the trooper who shot the person in the mosque in Iraq was justly in fear of his life and safety or not, he will have to live with the consequences of his decision for the rest of his life, and how he himself deals with those consequences may have little or nothing to do with what the Marine chain of command ultimately decides was reasonable for the situation. It is his perception of events that will determine the course of the rest of his life.

Taking the life of another human being is rarely a trivial thing, and in this case, I doubt the man involved thought it was trivial or will ever forget his decision.

If you can't deal with this kind of moral relativity, you don't deserve to be called an "adult".

Do the questions I ask in reaction to the televising of his decision detract from the ultimate rightness or wrongness of his decision? No, they do not. However, those of us who sit comfortably in our homes need to fully understand the daily, hourly, and instantaneous decisions made on our behalf by those who have volunteered to give up so much of themselves to serve a greater good, the defense of our country, and in many cases, the defense of our society, in addition to those made in reasonable defense of their own lives.

Broadcasting the effects of our asking this of these good men and women, even to the effect of showing those men and women in a less than absolutely perfect light, is also an integral part of our responsibility in knowing and understanding what we are asking. We MUST know what we are asking them to do.

Does this mean I am saying the sacrifice is too great?

No, it does not.

If you are so simple-minded to think so, you do not deserve to be called an "adult".

Questioning the reasons behind asking for that sacrifice is an obligation of those making the request, an appreciation of that sacrifice that is NOT a denigration of that sacrifice, nor is it saying it was not "worth it", despite what the distorted lenses of some might cause them to read of anything that does not at first appear to be in complete lock-step with their views.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I don't claim to be perfect, nor perfectly objective.

I DO TRY to step outside of my own head and perspective, constantly, something that those who like to throw rocks are all too hesitant to do.

I wrote in another post, "It is the falsehoods masquerading as truth that fear the light of scrutiny." If your beliefs cannot stand to be questioned, are they really worth the mindless allegiance you give them?

Pointless

A "big-blogger" has chosen to take offense at something I wrote, showing in the process that he didn't even take the few brief moments to understand what I was saying. I prefer to avoid getting into pissing matches, because all it accomplishes is to cover all the people involved in urine, but in this case I will post the response I left in the comments section of his post:

Well, Rob, I'm sorry you don't like me, but just as you say you don't write your blog for other people, I don't write my blog to please your sorry ass.

I don't know who pissed in your Wheaties this morning, but it wasn't me, and I doubt even your bionic pecker is strong enough to piss across an ocean.

Unfortunately, my web host is down at the moment, so I cannot post replies to your comments, but you have chosen to completely misinterpret what I wrote, which is your loss.

If you're in a pissy mood, that's fine. If you want to disagree, that's fine. If you have other information than what I posted that you want to say "no, you're wrong, and here is why" feel free to show it. But, what you choose instead is an attack with NO information in it other than to expose your blathering idiot side. At the end of the post you discuss, I say the biggest threat to the US is the rise of the Asian nations, NOT global warming. If you're going to be an asshole, Rob, at least get your insults correct.

And if you don't like what I say, then I will tell you what you have so often told other people. You can go fuck yourself, because I don't write for you.

End of story.

An observation and some advice

People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history.
   -Dan Quayle

Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk.
   -Joaquin Setanti

Using Social Security Trust Fund money to promote a political agenda...

...is not why I pay Social Security taxes.

From The New York Times:

"The system is broken, and promises are being made that Social Security cannot keep," Mr. Bush said in his Saturday radio address. He is expected to address the issue in his Inaugural Address.

But agency employees have complained to Social Security officials that they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program. They question the accuracy of recent statements by the agency, and they say that money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for such advocacy.

"Trust fund dollars should not be used to promote a political agenda," said Dana C. Duggins, a vice president of the Social Security Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 50,000 of the agency's 64,000 workers and has opposed private accounts.

Deborah C. Fredericksen of Minneapolis, who has worked for the Social Security Administration for 31 years, said, "Many employees believe that the president and this agency are using scare tactics to promote private accounts."

---

Witold R. Skwierczynski, president of the Social Security Council of the federation of government employees, said: "Some of the information being imparted by agency officials is not factual, not accurate. There is no immediate crisis."

In interviews, other Social Security employees expressed similar views. But council members were more willing to allow use of their names because a federal law generally protects them against "penalty or reprisal" when they speak publicly or testify before Congress.

Social Security employees denied that their concerns were motivated by a bureaucratic mentality, a fear of change or a desire to protect their jobs.

"There's a lot more to it than that," said Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents lawyers and paralegals at the Social Security Administration. "There's a genuine concern about how people will live when they retire, a real fear that Social Security benefits could be eroded by private accounts."

---

Robert M. Ball, who worked at the Social Security Administration for three decades and was commissioner under Democratic and Republican presidents from 1962 to 1973, said: "It's fine for the agency to answer factual questions, but it's unusual to use the Civil Service organization to push a political agenda, especially because what they're saying is not true. The program is not going bankrupt."

So, now, after illegally paying Armstrong Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind act, now the Bush administration is using Social Security Trust Fund money to promote their political agenda. Is it only me that feels this administration is getting more and more unsavory as time passes? As George Will recently wrote, "When conservatives break with their principles, they seem to become casual about breaking the law, too."

And in addition to using Social Security Trust Fund money to spread their political message, there is a reasonable doubt that the numbers being thrown around are not accurate.

Other analysts, including the Congressional Budget Office, have reached a different conclusion. They say the combination of benefits from the trust fund and individual accounts is likely to be less than actual benefits under the current system.

Dissent among those interpreting the data, but the administration bulls on ahead with the analysis that matches their agenda, ignoring all else. Where have we heard THAT before?

I'll give President Bush the final word here, recalling when he eloquently said, "fool me once, shame on...shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."

Perhaps a small good can come of this

When I was still living in Austin, the crowd I hung out with at our favorite bar created a saying, "Nothing good can come of this," used to terminate discussions that would obviously go down a path that is best not taken in an atmosphere of camaraderie towards the end of a week of work.

The denouement of what will likely be only the first act in the unveiling of the full story of the Abu Ghirab incidents has much of the same sense, portending that nothing good can come of this. How much can we believe the unsworn testimony of Army Reserve Spc. Charles Graner Jr.? A man convicted for his role in abusing detainees at Abu Ghirab prison in Baghdad; a man who if he is at all rational is trying to avoid a harsh sentence. How honest would his statements be, especially unsworn? From CNN.com:

Friday, Graner had been found guilty of nine of the 10 specifications, or counts, with which he was charged.

Earlier Saturday during the penalty phase of his court-martial, he said he did not relish doling out what he described as "irregular treatment."

"I didn't enjoy it," Graner testified in the penalty phase of his court-martial. "A lot of it was wrong. A lot of it was criminal."

Graner said he was obeying his superiors.

"We were called to violate the Geneva Convention," Graner said. "We were asked to do certain things I wasn't trained to do."

Graner's testimony was unsworn, meaning he was not be cross-examined by prosecutors.

His orders came from civilian contractors as well as military intelligence, Graner said, during two-and-a-half hours on the witness stand.

"A lot of the weird stuff came from civilian contractors," he said, referring specifically to the photographs. Also, he said, "crazy stuff" was ordered by military intelligence soldiers.

When his attorney, Guy Womack, asked why he was smiling in some photographs, Graner said, "There were a lot of things we did that were screwed up. If you didn't look at it as funny, you couldn't deal with it."

His answer to the question of why he was smiling does not have the ring of insincerity that a statement intended solely to avoid punishment would have been freighted with.

There are more investigations and trials soon to be underway that will expose the full, ugly truth of that hellhole prison that Saddam Hussein used and within which we ended up perpetuating his horrific legacy, exposing our feet of clay.

It may be too simplistic to say "nothing good can come from this," because if we do not face up to our failings, we will be no better than those who oppose us. Regardless of how we choose to deal with the revalations of our failings, it will not be pleasant, and the ultimate good that comes of the self-examination may be difficult for all but the most perceptive to recognize, but no less important despite the apparent obscurity.

Sometimes saying less is more

The Economist magazine, in their own uniquely British fashion, has managed to say everything there is to say about the nominations by the re-elected Bush administraiton for the second holder of the office of Secretary of Homeland Security:

In choosing Michael Chertoff, an appeals court judge, to head up the giant Homeland Security Department, the White House plainly hopes it has found the safe option. Its first choice, Bernie Kerik, New York's tough-talking former police chief, also looked pretty good - at least for a day or so. Officially, Mr Kerik's nomination sank because of his employment of an illegal immigrant; but enough skeletons spilled out of his closet - an arrest warrant, friends with mob connections, an unacknowledged marriage, affairs and much more - to fill 20 confirmation hearings.

Not much to say about Kerik after that dry statement.

I recommend highly reading The Economist regulary. They provide a good off-shore view of the world, written in English.

Some quick thoughts on the so-called Information Age

From CNN.com:

Feds: Quecreek miner's map misfiled
Map could have prevented accident

Saturday, January 15, 2005 Posted: 11:02 AM EST (1602 GMT)

UPPER ST. CLAIR, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A map of an abandoned mine that might have prevented a flood that trapped nine miners underground for 77 hours had been tucked away in a coal company closet and forgotten, a government report shows.

The nine-man team of miners working in the Quecreek mine in July 2002 had an outdated map that didn't show the exact location of the adjacent Saxman mine, which was filled with millions of gallons of water.

The miners pierced the wall of the Saxman mine, quickly filling part of the Quecreek mine with water and trapping the miners. Crews were eventually able to pull them out one-by-one in a dramatic rescue that made international headlines.

I see this every day in my job; information already exists that would help avoid problems (or disasters), yet it is not readily available to those who need it. In some cases, the unavailibility is due to appropriate systems not being in place to allow the information to be distributed, in other cases the information is "lost" similar to the case described by CNN above regarding the miners.

This is the key problem of our so-called Information Age. Information is useless unless it is not only available to those who need it, but also those who need it must be aware of it for the information to actually be of any use. This need for awareness is usually forgotten in the efforts to streamline and improve the distribution of data, but I suspect that eventually it will be regarded as key.

Now, how do we fix the problem?

Photos from another world

Titan appears to have some kind of liquid present on the surface. This is very important, because it is hypothesized that it is much easier for life of any type, not just that we are familiar with, to form in the presence of liquids.

The image archive for the Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn and the moon Titan is here.

Here is the first color image from the surface:

A composite panorama made up of images taken during the descent can be found here.

The madness of the extreme

Here is a case of taking a few observations that in themselves may accurately reflect the tendencies of an individual and constructing a huge, overarching, intricate structure whose entire purpose is to serve as character assassination disguised as psychological analysis.

The article linked and quoted below is not only inaccurate, it's idiotic. If this is how the far-left-wing is trying to understand the results of the 2004 election, it shows me that the extremists on that side of the spectrum are just as paranoid as the far-right-wing, with the main difference being what they are paranoid about, not the simple fact of being paranoid.

Those who take this so-called analysis seriously indeed deserve the appellation "moonbat".

The Madness of George W. Bush: A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis

Bush’s sickness is our own. by Paul Levy

George W. Bush is ill. He has a psycho-spiritual disease of the soul, a sickness that is endemic to our culture and symptomatic of the times we live in. It’s an illness that has been with us since time immemorial. Because it’s an illness that's in the soul of all of humanity, it pervades the field and is in all of us in potential at any moment, which makes it especially hard to diagnose.

Bush's malady is quite different from schizophrenia, for example, in which all the different parts of the personality are fragmented and not connected to each other, resulting in a state of internal chaos. As compared to the disorder of the schizophrenic, Bush can sound quite coherent and can appear like such a "regular," normal guy, which makes the syndrome he is suffering from very hard to recognize. This is because the healthy parts of his personality have been co-opted by the pathological aspect, which drafts them into its service. Because of the way the personality self-organizes an outer display of coherence around a pathogenic core, I would like to name Bush's illness ‘malignant egophrenic (as compared to schizophrenic) disease,’ or ‘ME disorder,’ for short. If ME disorder goes unrecognized and is not contained, it can be very destructive, particularly if the person is in a position of power.

In much the same way that a child's psychology cannot be understood without looking at the family system he or she is a part of, George Bush does not exist in isolation.We can view Bush and his entire Administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc), as well as the corporate, military industrial complex that they are co-dependently enmeshed with, the media that they control, the voters that support them, and ourselves as well, as interconnected parts of a whole system, or a "field." Instead of relating to any part of this field as an isolated entity, it’s important to contemplate the entire interdependent field as the ‘medium’ though which malignant egophrenia manifests and propagates itself. ME disease is a field phenomenon, and needs to be contemplated as such. Bush's sickness is our own.

Ordinarily one says "read the whole thing" because the entirety of the text is regarded as well-written and worthwhile. In this case, reading the whole thing is important to gain understanding of the mindset here, a mindset that is searching for reasons everywhere but where the reasons actually lie.

In the end, the key difference between the far-right and the far-left is that the far-right sees the world through distorted lenses, while the far-left constructs intricate, tortured theories to explain why others don't think the way they do, assuming the way they think is the one and only logical and correct way. In the end, both extremes are too blind to see that there is more than one way to think.

It's not technology related...

...b