Out of town for 3 days.

I'm going to be out of town until Saturday night, so there may not be much to read in the next fews. I'm going to importune Seamus and Doc Shlomo to post a few choice tidbits over the next few days. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. If not, my apologies!

Exporting a therapy culture

New York Times has an essay today about the debate going on in international aid circles over whether therapy services should be included in aid packages after disasters and wars. The article gives the impression that there is a growing consensus that therapy is not something that foreign victims of such tragedies need. However, if you look at the author’s most recent publication, you might come to the conclusion that this person believes that therapy and the reliance thereon is not necessarily something good.

I’m not sure how I feel about the issue. On one hand, it certainly seems that the potential for post-traumatic stress syndrome and other similar psychological problems would be much greater after something like a war or a disaster. On the other hand, therapy seems like a uniquely subjective experience that relies on the provider and the recipient sharing similar cultural, linguistic, and possibly religious backgrounds in order that they can have meaningful discussion and analysis. Certainly this seems to be a good argument for providing access to local healers. Indigenous folkways might not provide pharmaceutical relief, but I don’t think the importance of rites and rituals should be overlooked.

Anyway, it’s an interesting article and not a topic I’ve ever thought about before.

Right-wing Terrorists

I ought to be working, but I’ll point you to one last link. Orcinus, one of my favorite bloggers out there, comments on the Congressional Quarterly article that reports that DHS has omitted right-wing domestic terrorists from its list of internal threats to the US. Orcinus makes the very good point that though these people might be dormant right now, it doesn’t make them less of a threat. A perfect example of this is the barrage of slime that came from the right wing when Judge Lefkow’s husband and mother were murdered in Chicago last month. There were plenty of fascist Americans crowing over the judge getting her “just desserts”.

The fact that the Bush Administration has completely omitted these sorts of people from its threat list, but included groups like ELF and ALF is not especially surprising. Republicans have spent years trying to conflate ELF-like direct-action groups with mainstream environmental groups like NRDC or Sierra Club. Their obvious motive is to convince Americans that environmentalism is a radical and violent ideology and should be rejected at the political and personal levels. This is total crap, of course, and driven by the extractive and polluting industries who almost uniformly support Republicans and would prefer to operate unfettered by even the limpest environmental regulations.

Likewise, the omission of right-wingers (including those driven by radical fundamentalist Christian beliefs) from the list is, as I see it, a means by which to help people forget the close ties the Republican movement has with extremists. Fact is, whether you’re talking about anti-abortionists, white supremacists or the Christian Identity movement, there are lots of folks out there who embrace violence as a political tool and who are closely aligned, if not directly affiliated, with the leadership of the Republican party.

Grab that revolver

CNN, of all places, has a pretty interesting article about Moby. I was disappointed to see, however, that it makes no mention of his absolute best album to date, Animal Rights. His cover of Mission of Burma’s That’s When I Reach for My Revolver totally rocks out, and some of the slower tracks are amazingly effective at conveying loneliness and fear. If you like Moby and don’t own Animal Rights, go buy it now.

Reading through the Apocalypse

Two years ago, I sent Seamus a box of books for his birthday. (I have to admit that I sent him nothing this year, and I still feel guilty. I need to get my act together and send that boy some ammunition or something…). Anyway, the theme of the books was uniformly post-apocalyptic. Thus, it included the following books:

• Z for Zacharia


• A Canticle for Liebowitz


• Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horsewoman


• Alas, Babylon

I think there was another one in there possibly, but I don’t remember. If I’d thought about it, I would also probably have included The Stand by Stephen King.

Anyway, I was wondering if there was any repository or list of all the best post-apocalyptic literature. I think it’s pretty obvious that most of it is going to be science fiction and, a google search, turned up this list. But I really want to find other books. Anybody out there have any good suggestions?

Bike commuting is fun

I was finally able to ride my bike to work today. It was the first time in the three weeks I’ve worked here in Silver Spring. I have to say that this may be the best commute route I’ve ever had. It’s 9.5 miles, mostly uphill and mostly through residential DC neighborhoods. The section through Columbia Heights is very cool. 10th Street, in particular, has a beautiful section that deviates from the grid pattern and makes a swooping ess. The most interesting section, though, is on 8th Street just past Geranium St. The building styles shift from late 1930s brick houses to the sort of Craftsman bungalow I tend to associate with early 1950s suburbia.

Anyway, the trip took me 48 minutes and, apart from the copious sinus output, I enjoyed every minute of it. I think I’m going to miss the ride once this contract ends. Of course, if the contract ends with me receiving an offer to move to Sacramento, CA, and clerk on a water rights adjudication, I don’t think I’d be that disappointed.

Get working!

Last week Doctor Shlomo, one of my two guest contributors had a post in which he took a couple of other liberal bloggers to task for harshing on religious lefties. I’m going to take this opportunity to suggest that Doctor Shlomo and the liberal bloggers are talking across each other about two different phenomena.

Doctor Shlomo rightly points out that there are a number of liberal religious groups out there doing “good works”. These include Christian Peacemaker Teams and the Catholic Worker Movement. However, Mike the Mad Biologist (and others) rightly point out that there are few liberal Christian groups doing political work. As I understand it, the critiques we are reading about liberal Christians is not that they are not active, but that they are not active in motivating Christians to vote Democrat. Doctor Shlomo has given us examples of religious lefties struggling to improve this world, Mike and others are complaining that they need to be working to improve Democrats’ performance in the polls.

The fact is, right-wing conservative Christians have spent the last 30 years convincing their friends and neighbors that Democrats are out to get them and that only Republicans can represent their interests. Left-wing Christians have spent the last 30 years protesting nuclear war, social injustice and abusive governments. Right-wing Christians have spent 30 years trying to get people elected to local, state and federal legislatures. Left-wing Christians have spent 30 years providing services to those in need. Right-wing Christians have focused on gaining control of the political system, left-wing Christians have focused on doing good.

Here’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Three weeks ago, I spent a Saturday afternoon at a place called So Others Might Eat. It’s a soup kitchen/social services organization that provides food, shelter, education and counseling to homeless people in DC. While there, I talked with some of the other folks volunteering. Turns out, most of them were from “liberal” churches in the District. Turns out, too, that these folks have filled the volunteer schedule for SOME through July. That’s right. Liberal lefty Christians doing good works and lots of them.

Where were the conservative evangelicals and suburban mega-church believers? Not there. Many of them were at the National Association of Evangelicals conference in downtown DC, adopting a platform that called for evangelicals to expand their attentions away from the bread and butter issues like abortion and gay marriage to focus on social justice issues and the environment. In other words, conservative evangelicals have decided that now that they control the federal government, maybe they should start working to help other people. Maybe religious lefties need to do the same. Now that they’ve mastered the art of helping other people, maybe they should start working to help Democrats regain control of the federal government.

Explaining women's earning power

The New York Times has an an interesting little article today. It reports that college-educated black women and Asian women make more, on average, than college educated white women. The article suggests one explanation for this: minority women more often work more than one job. I haven’t seen the data and I don’t know work habits among races, but I wonder if there’s not another explanation.

I wonder if part of the discrepancy may be due to differentials in access to college educations among the different racial groups. I’m inclined to assume that more white women with more diversity of skill levels have historically had access to college educations than either black or Asian women. Whether it’s due to racial discrimination, socio-economic differences or other factors, I’d make a bet that a greater percentage of white women go to college than minority women. This is not to say that white women are more or less smart or skilled than minority women; merely that they have more opportunities to go to college. As a result, more white women of differing abilities are graduating from college, entering the workforce and experiencing differing levels of success therein.

Conversely, college access among black and Asian women has been less universal. As a result, it’s possible that fewer “average” minority women and more “above average” minority women are graduating from college. Perhaps these “above average” minority women are experiencing higher success rates than white women and thus earning more. If this is true, and there aren’t other factors at play, it suggests that median incomes among women of different races will approach the average for women as a whole once college access becomes universal.

Anyway, that’s just a thought. I don’t know if it’s right or not, and would welcome any critiques. If I am right, though, the data does suggest that employers are not discriminating among women of different races. That’s a very positive thing. On the other hand, the data still shows the traditional income discrepancies between males and females. I consider that a huge negative. However, feminist that I am, I’m doing my part to keep that gap small on the household level. Of the 6 years the lovely and I have been together, I’ve earned more than her for only one...

Female nomadism

Every year or so my lovely wife decides that we have to move. This is an annual thing, and seems to correspond with the onset of spring. The topic generally arises during a weekend breakfast and begins with the following: “Honey, I’ve been thinking….” When I hear that, I know it’s time to duck and run and hide all the classifieds. Either that or start packing. Anyway, as you all know, Sunday the 20th was the first day of spring. Like clockwork, we’re eating waffles this past Saturday and the lovely pops out with, “Honey, I’ve been thinking…” Shit! Where to run, where to hide! Trapped by the alluring odor of hot waffles and coffee, I’m forced to respond. Adopting my most innocent tone, I come up with the brilliant, “Oh yeah, about what?”

”I think we need to move into a real house.”

Ah yes, “A real house”. Last year we moved from a one-bedroom, rail car apartment into our current abode. It’s a row house. It has two floors. It faces east and has great light. A year ago, this was a real house. By Saturday it had apparently transmogrified into something altogether different.

“I’ve been reading the classifieds and I found a nice house in Del Ray.”

What? Where’d she get the classifieds? I thought I burned those when I brought the paper in this morning. “Really? Del Ray? Hmmm…”

“I think I’m going to call the woman and see if we can look at the house. It has two bedrooms! I mean, we’re only going to look, right?”

“Honey, we have two bedrooms.”

”I know, but we don’t have a backyard.”

”Sure we do, it just happens to be encased in concrete. It’s behind the house, though, and definitely qualifies as a backyard.”

“I can’t plant anything in concrete, I’m going to call this woman.”

So it was, that yesterday at 5:00, the lovely and I are walking around a cute little bungalow with two bedrooms and a backyard in Del Ray, Virginia. It really was nice. Wood floors, a bathroom in the basement (for me), a full backyard with raised beds, a 15 minute walk to the Metro. It was nice, but I couldn’t see myself living there. More importantly, even if I could imagine that, I didn’t want to pack up everything we own (again) and move (again) to a place that in about a year, won’t be a “real house.” Okay, it might be a real house, but I suspect that that this “real house” business is just lovely wife shorthand for “I’m a nomad at heart and wish we lived in a well-appointed, two-bedroom yurt that we could move around at will.”

Anyway, long story short, once we got back into the car and were driving home, I pulled out the trump card. “Honey, what if I get that clerkship on the 9th Circuit? We might have to move to California in a month.”

By the time we got home, it seems the row house had become “real” again. Real enough to last until we figure out what state we’ll be living in next year.

Who is Borf?

I don’t know if Borf has come to your town, but he is becoming ubiquitous here in DC (and along the Eastern Seaboard). I don’t know who he is, but I have culled the following facts from a variety of venues:

• Borf is immortal


• Borf [hearts] Chaos Punx


• Everyone loves Borf!


• Bush Hates Borf


• Borf is bi-coastal


• Borf [hearts] New York


• Borf hates pink stickers. [next to a pink sticker]


• Borf lives!

Anybody else seen Borf in their town? I’d love to hear what he has had to say there.

Judicial tyranny my ass.

I was listening to NPR earlier this evening and some punkass mid-western Republican was whining that the Schiavo case has highlighted the abusive judicial tyranny. If I could have reached through the radio and throttled this douchebag, I would have. Listening to another simpering slimebag Republican moan and groan about the "judicial tyranny" nearly drove me to violence.

This gentleman, who's name I forget, was complaining that the federal court that took the Schiavo case after Congress gave it jurisdiction did not provide enough review. Really! He complained that the bill gave the court the power of de novo review, but that the court did not exercise that right. According to this pussbucket, the court should have abided by Congress' will, and it did not.

Well, I urge each and every one of you to go read the bill and tell me what it says. If you do, you will see that the bill gives the federal court jurisdiction to hear the Schiavo case and review it de novo. There are a lot of "shalls" in there, but none of them say, "The court SHALL provide injunctive relief requiring the hospice to feed Terry Schiavo." This, of course, is what the Republican Congressman was complaining about. The court did not provide the injunction Congress intended it to and, as a result, they've decided to complain about judicial tyranny.

That term has now been rendering virtually meaningless. As far as I can tell, whenever a conservative whines "judicial tyranny", it's shorthand for "I want results-oriented conservative activists sitting on all federal courts, and the judge in the case I'm complaining about is not a results-oriented conservative activist." Don't be fooled, right-wing conservatives have one and only one judicial philosophy: nominate judges who will create a theocracy.

A parable

You can find a parable for the ages here. I give it to you know because it is just so timely.

Managing our Fisheries

Sorry again for the lack of postings from me. I'm at a two-day fisheries management conference and don't have access to a computer. If I did, though, I'd regale you all with stories about violent spats over whether individual fishing quotas should be five or fifteen years in length, and whether periodic re-authorization of a trading program is worthwhile. Aren't you glad I don't?

Greetings Dr. Shlomo

It's nice to see the Mennonite join the fray! I was wondering what was taking his slack ass so long. In the course of his post, he poses the following question for us:

"[I]f I were to demonize those who wish to keep her alive, am I acting any better than Tom Delay?"

If you were demonizing those who wish to keep her alive for the purpose of reaping political gain, then no. However, if you were demonizing them with a pure and guileless heart, then yes! Demonization is only bad when it is done with bad intentions....

Okay, maybe I'm kidding. I do think that there are good (albeit misguided) people militating to keep Terry Schiavo alive. I think those folks firmly (and wrongly) believe that all life, conscious or not, must be protected at all costs. The problem as I see it, is that this belief seems to trump all other values, including that most traditional American value of individual liberty and autonomy. What disturbs me most of all in this case, is the right-wingers' willingness to use the government to intrude so deeply into individual lives. Very scary stuff, if you ask me!

On a final note, can some religious conservative explain to me how right-wing attacks on the Schiavo marriage are any less damaging to that institution than, say, gay marriage.

Valle Vidal by air

Dig these pics of the Valle Vidal taken from an airplane!

Spring outlook

For those of you who find meteorology interesting, NOAA released their Spring Outlook this week. It's chock full of cool maps and predictions for the Nation's weather this spring.

The party of theocracy

It would appear that Republicans are not unanimous in their support for police state paternalism. Check out the quote halfway down the first page from Chris Shays. Well, Chris, what are you going to do about it?

Hey George & Dick!

I'm going to eat enough bran to float the Spanish Armada, and then I'm going to come to your houses and take a couple of giant dumps. However, don't worry, it won't be a problem because I'll only shit on 8% of everything. I mean, what's the harm? It's only 8%. I'll leave 92% of your houses completely untouched!

Developing the pristine

Remarkably enough, I have made no mention on this blog about the Senate’s recent vote to keep plans for drilling in ANWR tucked away in a budget resolution. Mostly, I ignored this because I was sick. Now that I’m feeling better, I thought I’d talk a little about it.

To begin with, I suspect that lots of folks outside the environmental community wonder what’s the big deal with drilling in ANWR. As the pro-drilling trope goes, the place is something like 17.5 million acres of wilderness, and they only want to drill in 8%. Can that be so bad? Well, what’s bad is that the 8% they want to drill in is a) highly sensitive tundra and b) smack dab in the middle of calving grounds for the Porcupine herd. Tundra takes hundreds of years to recover from human impacts and, boy howdy, oil drilling creates serious impacts. Likewise, ain’t no caribou in the world gonna give birth next to some howling turbines driving an oil pump. Fact is, for less than 1 year’s worth of oil, drilling in ANWR is going to fuck up some mighty pretty stuff.

But, and this is key, the battle over ANWR isn’t really about oil and it isn’t really about caribou. Nope. The battle over ANWR is really just a skirmish (and possibly a distraction) over the larger effort by the Bush Administration to rape, deflower and despoil as much pristine wilderness as it can. I know that sounds crazy, but I’m serious.

The Bushies aren’t stupid. They know they can’t always run the government. At some point, the American people will wake up and put someone else in. What then? The Bushies are still going to want to extract as much oil, natural gas and fossil fuels as they can. In the past, environmentalists (and the DOI) have been able to argue against development projects if they would intrude into pristine areas. There might not be an explicit law preventing resource development, but it was easy to point out intrinsic values of undeveloped land, natural beauty, tourist uses, etc. Those sorts of argument will be unavailing, however, if resource extraction has begun already.

Thus, over the last four years (and over the coming four), the Bush Administration has driven hard to hand out as many drilling licenses as it possibly could in our Western states. As a result, we’re not just seeing battles over drilling in ANWR, but oil drilling in the Otero Mesa, coalbed methane development in the Valle Vidal, and natural gas development on the Rocky Mountain Front Range. All of these places are beautiful, wild areas that oil companies have been trying to get into for years. Those companies know that if they can get a foot in the door, those places will never be the same and they’ll never have to leave.

Gratuitous cat pictures

Twilly is our new cat. He stinks, but he is good-natured and has cool eyes. He weighs about 7 pounds and has taken to putting the mix on our fat cat, Boo.


Twilly #1 


Twilly #2 

I was wrong and now I'm contrite

My recent ravings are likely to make many sensitive conservatives feel bad and yucky and I'm veeeeerrry sorry.

Okay, not really. In fact, I ought to keep writing this way if only because Jim Foreman, some numbnuts from Oklahoma, warned me that doing so would just make people want to vote Republican and I feel especially petty today and want to see if he's right. Nonetheless, I probably should stop because, as another post by Jack Balkin points out, polarization of the blogosphere likely effects polarization of civil society generally, which most people, myself included, feel is a bad thing.

Thus, I'm going to make nicey and not be so vitriolic. Unless I'm provoked. Or my blood-sugar is low.

I haven't decided to be civil yet

So I'll point you to someone who has. Here's an interesting post from Jack Balkin on the Schiavo case. He points something out that I had not thought of. Most conservatives claim that if Roe is overturned, states will be able to write their own abortion laws. The Schiavo case suggests they may be, as in all other cases, lying fucking sacks of regurgitated pig shit. Chances are, given the opportunity, Republicans in Congress will write a broad, anti-abortion law as soon as they can get their fat asses down to the Capitol and do so. Really, they probably have one stashed away at HQ already. Anyway, read Jack Balkin for smart, rational posts.

Why have I been so crude recently?

Because civility is dead. I listened to Rush Limbaugh throttle it during the 1990s. I watched Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay kick its bloody and broken body. And now, these days, I have to watch Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity scramble on top to fuck its mouldering corpse like a necrophilic harpy and its mongoloid gorilla sidekick. So. Having seen all that happen, why the fuck should I make any pretense of a) liking a single fucking Republican I ever met, or b) talking pretty about the madmen, proto-fascists and neanderthals who make up that party these days?

While I was sick, it suddenly occurred to me why the mouth-breathers like listening to Limbaugh: it's fun. Well you know what, it's fun writing this way, too. And easy! I don't have to think, I don't have to make a pretense of rationality, I don't even have to have any facts. I can make shit up! Did you know that Laura Bush was giving hummers to right-wing dictators in the White House kitchen? Aren't you outraged?!?!

The Decembrist on courage.

I highly recommend this post from The Decembrist on what courage means in the political context.

Everything smells like smoke

And everything tastes like chalk. I woke up this morning and, for the fifth time in as many days was unable to enjoy a cup of coffee. Do you know what that is like? I've drunk coffee every single morning of my adult life, darn near. To find that your absolutely favorite beverage on the face of the Earth (next to water) suddenly tastes like chalkboard dust is maddening. Is there any wonder I'm bitter and angry?

Illness and a foul mood

It would seem that my lingering illness has plunged me into a foul state of mind. Or, at least, yesterday it plunged me into a foul state of mind. So foul, in fact, that I forgot to bring up another delightful anecdote from the Terry Schiavo circus. Before I go there, though, read this post on the rank hypocrisy that continues to drip from Republicans like stinking ooze from the anal glands of a horny weasel.

And now:

I listened to Weekend Edition upon awaking Sunday morning. They had a segment on the Schiavo case. It included the following tidbit from our Man of Reason in Congress, Rick Santorum:

I can't imagine that a judge who would legitimately take a case under the authority of Congress to review it de novo would allow the subject matter of the case to die. That would be an abuse, would be an irresponsible abuse, of that judge's power.

Can we all step back and consider what Mr. Santorum said please? Look at that quote closely. He has just voted to give a federal judge the jurisdiction to review the Schiavo case de novo. He then states that if a judge takes the case AND decides not to force the hospital to reinsert Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, the judge will be abusing his power. Shorter now: if the federal judge does not exercise his judicial power and force re-insertion, he/she will be irresponsibly abusing that power.

Isn't that sweet? Mr. Santorum who, in his battle against the blood-thirsty scourge of happily-married gays, has been known to say things like, "[a gay marriage amendment] simply restates the law of every state in this country and protects them from judicial tyranny", seems to have suddenly decided that judicial power can only be employed responsibly when it is employed maximally. Yup, judicial power it turns out is like a sled dog, it's only happy when running full throttle down the trail. Keep that judicial sled dog penned up, and you're just abusing it.

Let's all remember this little Shiavo incident when a bunch of weak-kneed, teary-eyed proto-fascists are standing outside our local federal court whining about the judicial tyranny that keeps doing savage, uncivilized things like protecting the rights of women to control their own bodies.

Real Americans quake in their boots daily

Jesus General enlightens us on the meaning of being a patriot. If you're not afraid, the terrorists have already won.

Still sick, still pissed.

Seamus has asked me for my opinions on the Terry Schiavo case. To be honest, I don’t know how I feel about the actual facts of the case. From what ChiliMac says, it sounds like her husband did all he could for many years and only decided to remove the tube after determining that Schiavo is irrevocably brain dead. Likewise, it sounds like he made that decision because Ms. Schiavo had stated her wish never to exist in persistent vegetative state. Whether these facts are true or not doesn’t really matter anymore. This case has become just another contest in which each side shucks and jives and spins to try and make a little political gain. If it weren’t, would Senate Republicans write a memo saying this is a great way to galvanize social conservatives for mid-term elections?

Do I think Tom Delay gives a flying fuck about Terry Shiavo? No. Do I think his tiny little reptilian brain understood what his robot mouth was saying when, on CNN yesterday, he said, “I’m only trying to pass this law because I want Terry to get her due process”? Hell no. Nobody understood what Tom Delay was saying because he was talking gibberish. Could Terry Schiavo have gotten any more process? Years in state court, state legislation, review by the Supreme Court? Sounds to me like Ms. Schiavo got plenty of process and the process concluded the same thing that her husband did many years ago, she’s a vegetable and she would not have wanted to live like this. The fact that a sizeable number of religious conservatives disagree with that conclusion does not merit federal intrusion.

But, as we all know, religious conservatives in America like to intrude. In fact, their entire world view has been built on the idea that the more intrusion the better, because increased intrusion equals increased control and it’s only by controlling people that they can make them do (or stop doing) what they want. If you ask me, you can expect this sort of thing to become more common unless the libertarian wing of the Republican party pulls its collective head out of its ass and wakes up to the fact that today’s conservative Republicans don’t like libertarians or what they stand for.

In any case, I was not at all surprised to find this story about the Kansas State AG a few short pages from the Shiavo story in Sunday’s post. It’s a great example of what happens on the state level when red-staters elect a paternalistic, over-bearing , busy-body bible-thumper. This man of “conviction” is busy conducting an anti-abortion witch hunt which, no doubt, makes his constituents shiver with glee.

So there you have it. State-level religious conservatives in at least one state are making a mockery of privacy laws, the right to choose, and civil liberties. Meanwhile, federal-level religious conservatives are doing basically the same. They toss around “the fundamental right to life” as an excuse while glibly overlooking, ignoring, or rejecting all those government policies that might make life for many living, breathing, conscious people a better, richer experience. What does that say to me? Nothing good, that’s what. But if 50 fucking million ignorant shitheads want to elect these people to run our country, so be it. Maybe their religious concerns are more important than economic concerns. But when they’re standing in the fucking soupline or hunting day and night for some low-paying post-manufacturing service job, I hope they get a whole lot of fucking sustenance out of the idea that “at least those goddamn liberals didn’t get to pull the plug on that Shiavo girl.” Eat that you fuckers.

Requiem for a sourdough

Seamus has noted that I’ve given no updates on my sourdough in recent weeks. Given that I feel sluggish and stupid this morning, sourdough seems like a sufficiently easy topic for me to write on. Here’s the update: my sourdough died. Yup. I think it had to do with the milk basis as Brendan suggested. After the second batch, it began to smell funny (even in the fridge). I tried a batch of biscuits and they were possibly the foulest baked goods ever made by mankind. Needless to say, I tossed the whole batch. Since then, my new employment and recent illness have prevented me further explorations in sourdough. However, if I’m feeling better this coming weekend, I’m contemplating driving my stone crock out to the Shenandoah and trying to capture some hillbilly yeasts in a flour/water mixture while I bicycle the Skyline Drive. I’ll report back when that happens. Regardless, the recent collapse of my local sourdough culture has not dissuaded me from further tests. The idea of maintaining a sourdough culture for years on end, especially if I can ascribe an exotic provenance to it, strikes me as a singularly cool thing to do. Thus, you can be certain there will be future sourdough posts. And, if I can get a good culture, I’ll even start sharing!

The Flu

Sorry for the dearth of posts. After feeling crappy for the first three days of this week, I developed full-blown flu on Wednesday afternoon. The lovely and I both have it, and it sucks. I'd try writing more, but really all I want to do is lie down and sleep. I'll start posting again as soon as I get better.

On the joys of walking to work.

A number of my friends who have taken up bicycling – either as a hobby or as a means of transportation – have commented to me that they are suddenly more aware of their local terrain. Suddenly, hills appear where they didn’t know any existed; the exertion required to propel a bicycle, it seems, reveals inclines that are invisible when you are driving. The same can be said of walking.

Since I started my new job, I haven’t ridden to work. I only joined the gym yesterday (they have a shower) and I’ve had some sort of sub-flu for about three days. Thus, I’ve been riding the Metro and walking. In doing so, I’ve become much more familiar with the terrain of Capitol Hill. It wasn’t until this morning, walking to Union Station, that I realized that Fourth Street reaches its apex at East Capitol and slopes away on either side. The slope is gentle, so much so that I’ve never noticed it on bike or car. Yet by walking, I could not only see the slope, but feel it too, if only as a slight pull in my calves.

As I walked, I mulled over the shape of Capitol Hill. Having never really thought about it before, I realized that I don’t really have a clue how Capitol Hill is shaped. I know it drops off down to the Mall, I know it has a gentle decline down to the Anacostia River. Beyond that, I don’t know much. So, when I got to work this morning, I wasted 15 precious minutes of government time and did a little googling. Turns out there’s not many free topo maps online that I could find. I did, however, stumble across this fascinating site that discusses the history of Capitol Hill and includes a topo from about 1792. Very cool find, and all because I walked to work!

Pity the doughfaces

For this morning’s reading, I highly recommend this piece from an outraged progressive. If you’re anything like me, it will make you want to rage. It will make you want to foment a revolution, burn the palaces and gut the boardrooms. It will also make you want to read this article from the Post and confirm that incendiary rhetoric aside, Crowther has a point.

Thanks to Tom for the link.

More on religion

Yesterday I posted a link to Mike the Mad Biologist’s blog in which he discussed the religious left and how American Jews fit into that group. Mike’s post included a link to another blog by PZ Meyer, in which Mr. Meyer lambastes Amy Sullivan for writing an article which, as he sees it, suggests that Democrats embrace the religious left. In fact, if you read the Salon article, Ms. Sullivan never suggests such a thing. Rather, the article makes the main point that the religious left is weak and ineffectual because it has not undertaken the massive organizational effort the religious right has over the last thirty years.

In any case, Mr. Meyer is pretty strident in suggesting that this would be a mistake and that Democrats should embrace secularism and “free thought” as a party platform. Moreover, he makes it clear that this platform should be overtly anti-religion, though not anti-God. Personally, I disagree. What Democrats should be doing is emphasizing that theirs is a party for all faiths, that people of any faith will be well-represented by the party, but that they want the mechanisms of government to remain secular.

I could give two shits if Roy Moore is a card-carrying member of the Church of Lucifer (he’s not really). What I do care about is that Roy Moore thinks the Constitution was written specifically to reinforce the doctrines of the Church of Lucifer (he doesn’t really). To me, a politician’s or a party’s religion is inconsequential until they begin projecting their religion onto the structure and function of our federal and state governments. Doing so creates the risk that those governments will begin to militate for that particular religion to the detriment of all non-believers. At its root, government should be about protecting people’s bodies, not people’s souls. Highlighting this fact is exactly where I think the religious left has a role.

I think Mr. Meyer does the left a great disservice with his screed. Most people on the left do not share Mr. Meyer’s animosity towards religion and religious people. Most people on the left, I think, recognize that Enlightenment values and religious values can co-exist quite comfortably. Most people on the left, in fact, can envision a government that is run by atheists and true-believers alike, but which espouses neither view point. The real mission for the left and its religious members is to prove this point. One reason the religious right has become so strong, I think, is that they have succeeded in convincing Americans that Enlightenment values and religious values cannot co-exist and that those of us who call for secular government do so out of animus against religious beliefs and people. That is wrong, but Mr. Meyer certainly gives folks on the right reason to think otherwise.

The grace and finesse of an aging walrus

That would be me, swing dancing. Yet, despite all my bitching here yesterday, I had a good time! We drove up to Takoma Park around 7:30 with friends to a placed called Victor Dance in a local arts building. There were about 20 people, most of whom I knew. The instructor gave the lovely wife and I a brief lesson in the basic swing step and two turns, and then set us to dancing with other partners. I learned A LOT about maintaining tension between myself and my partner (physical tension), and how important that tension is to being a good lead. The end result, I spent an hour stumbling around and learning how much I don't know about how to dance well. We're going to practice 30 minutes a night this week and see what happens next. I'll report back then.

The reactionary inside.

Every time I hear about MS-13, otherwise known as Mara Salvatrucha, I somehow morph into a slavering reactionary. They are, if you're not familiar with them, a very violent Central American gang that operates with virtual impunity in DC, LA and other major cities. The feds captured something like 100 of them this weekend, with thirty-five or so coming from DC. In any case, when I read this news, my first reaction was, "When do the executions start?" How fucking weird is that?

I understand the various social factors (death squads, Salvadoran civil war, poverty, etc.) that fed into the founding of the gang, but I find it impossible to empathize or even care about the folks who join MS-13 and commit crimes. Anyway, I've been trying to understand how I can feel such loathing for one particular criminal organization and its members and I just can't figure it out. Needless to say, I find it disturbing that I can be so blithe in my discounting of these 100 human lives.

My gut reactions aside, I do hope that these people are given a fair trial. If they're guilty, let us hope the feds do not decide to send them back to the Honduras and El Salvador, but instead safely seperate and incarcerate them in federal prison. If they're not, let us hope they can return to normal life and avoid further run-ins with MS-13.

Anyway, I wonder if there is anything I can do but struggle with my personal biases?

Now that's tall!

Check out this picture of that giant Chinese NBA player next to the bike that Waterford/Gunnar made for him. It's crazy! Thanks to Large Fella for that one.

Let us all thank the Sweet Baby Jesus

The following quote comes from the NWS long-range forecast discussion for the mid-Atlantic.

"SATURDAY SYSTEM CLEARS THE AREA BY SUNDAY WITH TEMPERATURES SHOWING SIGNS OF RETURNING TOWARDS NORMAL AS SPRING ARRIVES NEXT WEEK."

Whoo-hoo!

Crybabies

Redbeard has a very interesting take on the bankruptcy bill that I haven't ever considered. I've generally opposed the bill on the grounds that it's removing another link in the safety net that protects the unfortunate in this country from abject poverty. Redbeard ntoes that the bill is basically a handout to crybaby corporations who make pisspoor decisions (i.e. lending money to high-risk borrowers).

As much as I enjoyed the post, I have to wonder if he's a bit off in his analysis. Credit card companies are providing a service to some poverty-stricken families in the short-term. Regardless of their ultimate ability to pay, these families often use credit cards as a sort of last defense against starvation/homelessness/etc. The fact that they are forced to rely on high-interest rate creditors merely highlights that our society (either government or the much-vaunted private sector) has failed in providing some basic level of support for some families.

I'm going to have to think about this.

Oh sweet day!

In recent months, I've taken to stating that I might be able to survive the next four years of a Bush administration if the political career of that odious weasel of a legislator, Tom Delay, crashed and burned. Watching him slink out of office like a beaten dog would not just make my day, it would make my year. Thus, it was with great pleasure that I read this article in the Post morning. Perhaps the sheep-like Republicans of Sugar Land will wake up and vote his stinking ass out of there next election?

The religious left

Mike the Mad Biologist has another post that demonstrates why he is rapidly becoming my favorite blogger. This time, he suggests that Democrats should write off the Christian religious left because they are either a) tiny or b) silent. Well, not really, but he does have some interesting things to say. Actually, I don't know why I keep pointing you to his articles, just read the blog every day.

Taking one for the team...

A group of our friends have signed up to take swing dancing lessons on Monday evenings. The precipitating factor in this decision was the need for two of them to learn how to dance for their wedding. A number of other folks piled on the bandwagon and, voile, they have a dancing class. My wife thought this sounded "really fun!" and signed us up.

Personally, I can't think of many things that would be less fun than spending 3 hours on a Monday night, after a long day at work, making a complete fool of myself in front of 8 friends. I'd rather have a root canal. I'd rather listen to Tom Delay give a speech. I'd rather be locked in a 5'x5' tin box for three hours while a troupe of rhesus monkeys bang out the Macarena on the box with rubber mallets. Honestly, it doesn't sound "really fun!"

But, I love my wife. And even if it doesn't sound "really fun!", stumbling around a dance floor for three hours a week for the next five weeks isn't that big a deal. Thus, tonight, I'm going to take one for the team and go to my first swing dancing lesson. Who knows, maybe I'll be really good and then learn how to two step and show up all the boys down at Remingtons....

Technology frustrations

I determined this weekend that due to my new state of employment I would begin posting occasionally (can I EVER spell that properly?) during the weekend. Having made this decision and started up my computer, though, I discovered that I can no longer connect to the internet. The computer works, but somewhere between the ethernet card and the Verizon DSL server, there's a breakdown. All this is to say, I couldn't post this weekend and I had lots to say!

Last roach of the Apocalypse

That would be Tom Delay.

Jim Cavaziel: Shorter, Neater, Recut!

Seems that our Number Two Man of God (Mel Gibson) has decided to "recut" his psychocatholic biblical bloodfest "The Passion of the Christ". It would seem that not all of his fellow travelers of the Christian way are quite as devoted to the flayed and blood bespattered image of Christ he seems to find so evocative and, hence, have denied him the $8.50 the "true believers" have already given. Who knew? Given the popularity of Tim LaHaye's psychotic and genocidal "Left Behind" series one might have thunk that American evangelicals were beginning to embrace the Catholic Church's fixation on blood and guts.

Blogger frustrations

I did a bit of research and Blogger says that emailed posts may take a long time because spammers abuse the email post system. Stinkass spammers. On the other hand, how much of a backlog can spammers create? I sent two different posts days ago, and neither has shown up.

His Beard?

Jesus General is, as usual, appallingly funny in his most recent post. However, can someone explain "his Beard" means. I understand "the Bear" is some reference to burly, hairy gay men; but "his Beard"?

Journalism and biomedical research

Mike the Mad Biologist has a great post wondering why the Washington Post is weighing in on biodefense research. He makes the great point that a lot of new science funding is going towards "fear-driven research". I like Mike, you should go read his blog.

Arrrrghhhhhhh

I just wrote an addendum to the last post and the fucking browser lost it. Grrrr....

Gist of my post: are there any bases for lawsuits based in nuisance theory or negligence theory against developers resulting from their destruction of ecosystem service values?

Parity of values

In my last post, I suggested there might be some merit to a constitutional amendment which required land owners to compensate communities for the loss of ecosystem services values due to land development. I've put a little bit more thought into the idea, trying to see if I can develop a meaningful justification (beyond retribution) for such a plan.

Off hand the only good justification I can think of is an economic efficiency argument. To wit, land owners, land developers, and society at large tend to undervalue natural resources. The land market, as currently configured, sees land as a resource whose only value lies in its development potential. Thus, all development decisions are basedd solely on the money they can generate. There is no mechanism to account for the external costs that development will create. This holds true whether we're talking about purely anthropogenic costs (increases in traffic congestion and air pollution, etc.) or intrinsic environmental costs (loss of ecosystem services, local extinction, etc.) In economic parlance, then, development decision are always misvalued and always economically inefficient. By forcing landowners to pay at least one portion of the external costs created by their development decisions, states would move towards a more rational and efficient development scheme.

Of course, this sort of plan would likely be declared anti-growth, anti-development, etc. I would argue that that is false. Economic inefficiency works both ways. There are, no doubt, places of dubious ecological value being preserved right now that might be ripe for development. If you want to be so crass as to put development decisions into some sort of formula, consider the following:

A = D - E where:

A = Actual value of a land parcel
D = Development value of a land parcel
E = Ecosystem service values of a land parcel

Ideally, you would develop land where A, the actual value of a land parcel, is positive. In those situations, the development value exceeds any ecosystem services values the land might provide, and you ensuring greater (if not entirely) efficient development is occuring.

Anyway, this is all pie in the sky. Beyond the political difficulty of convincing entire populations that landowners might owe some duty to the public at large, there is also the issue of measuring ecosystem service values. Doing so on a statewide scale (or nationwide scale) would require VAST resources that are unlikely to materialize in a political climate like ours.

Any of you smarty-pants types out there want to critique this?

Ecosystem services

I was thinking about Proposition 37 that was passed in Oregon in November. This is the constitutional amendment that requires the state and local governments to compensate landowners for reductions in land value due to land use regulations. It is, of course, total bullshit and a trope that passed solely by dint of its obtuse language. Or so I hope.

Anyway, I was thinking about Prop. 37 in relation to ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are those benefits provided by healthy ecosystems. One example are healthy riparian areas (otherwise known as stream and river banks). When riparian areas retain their natural vegetation and ground cover, they vastly reduce runoff into streams, slow down water flow, and generally reduce the strength and frequency of floods. Another example is wetland areas. A healthy wetland serves to filter and clean water that runs through it, thus ensuring cleaner water supplies for humans. (You might look here or here for further reading on the subject.) Though many people, especially conservatives, contest the idea or existence of ecosystem services, it is pretty clear that healthy ecosystems provide real value to the communities near which they are located. Likwise, it is clear that development within these healthy ecosystems can reduce those values and inflict harm on neighboring communities. Thus, for example, if Weyerhauser logs a watershed in Oregon, a downstream town could very well experience an uptick in floods and related costs.

So what does this have to do with Prop. 37? Well, imagine another constitutional amendment that required landowners to compensate local communities for loss of ecosystem services. I haven't put much thought into it, but this seems like an effective way of ensuring a governing system that makes 1) government fully consider the value of proposed regulations and 2) land owners fully consider the value of proposed development. I'll post more on this later. Right now, it's dinner time!

Posting by email?

Any of you folks out in the blogosphere know how to post to Blogger via email? Seeing as I'm employed now by the federal government, I can only post on my lunch hour and don't feel comfortable doing so directly into Blogger. I tried to send one post by email today, but it seems to have disappeared into the ether. If you know how to do this, please email me or post in the comments.

Muchas Gracias!

The Latin American model

I've got a personal theory about what the leadership of the Republican party wants to achieve in America. After listening to Grover Norquists, AEI, and all the other right-wingers for too many years, I think it's pretty clear that they want the United States to look like your "average" Latin American state. In other words, they want a highly economically and socially stratified country with virtually no upward mobility. They want a country with a giant, complacent underclass; a miniscule and frightened middle class; ineffectual regulatory mechanisms; no social safety net; a subservient judiciary; a powerful military; and a tiny, oligarchical group of powerful families. Why is that?

I think it's because the Republican party leadership has forgotten that the American government, ultimately, is an institution that was created to protect the commonwealth of its citizens, all its citizens. I believe that the Republican party leadership has swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the most abhorrent aspects of crass materialism, social darwinism, and free-market capitalism. Unwilling to accept or unable to see any limits (or negative effects) to these three ideologies, they would like to create a state in which they are allowed to operate unfettered except for the dictates of their own feckless consciences. I suspect that, at their heart, the Republican leadership believes that they will end up in the "ruling class" and escape unharmed from whatever ills might be wreaked by the ethically and morally bankrupt system they'd like to create.

I know, it sounds like some sick amalgam of Charles Dickens and Philip K. Dick. Perhaps the previous paragraph is a little overblown, the rhetoric a bit too wild. Nonetheless, I don't see any other way to interpret the legislative and political trends this Republican party has come to embrace and promote.

They deserve it.

As we all know, people who live in poverty do so because they deserve it. I salute those brave Republicans who recognized that fact and voted to deny these malingerers and loafers access to a living wage. It's about time the Senate stood up and said "NO!" to the tyranny of the slacker class. If these people want to waste their money on food, rent and clothing, so be it, but America's hard-working business owners shouldn't have to subsidize those sorts of wasteful habits. As any smart person knows, business owners can only pay wages if they make profits and raising the minimum wage in this country will a) destroy the profit-incentive and b) end profit-making as we know it. Three cheers for the kleptocracy!

An organization to rally behind

Yesterday's Post had a great article on a guy named Willie Grothman who, with a friend, started the Willie Grothman Club, a service-oriented organization to rival the Key Club. It reminded me of my high school days and the sort of folks I used to hang out with, the nerdy, funny folks who grow up top be interesting and successful people. My favorite paragraph of this piece:

[T]hey are as generous as Queen Elizabeth in bestowing titles. "I won't lie -- I mean, we created a lot of positions," Grothman said. "But when you're putting it on a college application, you want to at least have an officer position."

Read it. It's not always I'll share an article that doesn't entail some outrage or subterfuge perpetrated by the Bush Administration.

And, if the article leaves you feeling particularly nostalgic for the mid- to late-1980s, check out this article on Motley Crue's recent show in DC. I was never a glam rocker in high school, but there were certainly many of them at George Walton Comprehensive High School. The money quote:

Looking like a cross between Mr. Toad and the Grim Reaper, [Mick] Mars was a power-chording marvel, which is impressive because a degenerative spinal disease has left him hunched and frail.

Doesn't that just capture it?

A jobbidy jobby job...

Hi folks. It would seem that at least one person in the world of the employed has seen fit to provide me entree into that rarified place. Thus, yesterday, I was offered a four-month contract to work with a federal agency (who I've agreed to leave unnamed) on budget and environmental matters. Given that this will require 8-10 hours out of my blogging schedule, chances are the volume on this baby will be reduced somewhat. I can't say how much, but there may only be 2-3 posts per day these days.

Of course, I'm still generally outraged at everything I see in the news these days, so who knows. Maybe my lunch half-hour will become exceedingly productive. Likewise, I am inviting a third person to join the fray. Seamus, contrary to my expectations, has kept his radical mouth shut. I can only assume that manga is keeping him busy. Once this third party gives me his www.blogger.com name, I'll give him access to supplement my ranting. He's a progressive Mennonite with an encyclopedic knowledge of Christian history, postmodernist theory, and the modern peace movement. I expect he might have a few choice nuggets to share with us all.

What? Clinton isn't the Devil?

I just received further proof that the right-wing in this country is comprised of at least 50% hate-mongering freaks and delusional weirdos. Consider this story from CNN, which reports that Pres. Clinton allowed Pres. Bush I to sleep in the sole bed on a plane they took to SE Asia. It's hardly news, and basically represents a younger guy ceding a comfy bunk to an older guy. Whatever, more fluff from the media.

Just for kicks, I went over to Free Republic to see what the lunatic fringe had to say. The CNN story had been posted and atleast 111 people had posted comments in return. Take a minute and read through them. There are folks who recognize this as just a normal gesture of respect between two people. Then there are the rest. You read and see...

TPM Bankruptcy Blog

Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo has set up a temporary blog about the bankruptcy bill currently wending its way through Congress. This blog will be hosted by Elizabeth Warren, a bankruptcy law specialist at Harvard Law, and three of her students. I don't know much about the bill except that most progressives are opposed to it. I plan on using the blog to find out more about the bill, and you might wish to do the same as well.

Insanity, on the Republican Party's institutional

I took the Washington Post out of its little plastic bag this morning and saw the following headline: Tax Cuts Lost Spot on GOP Agenda. Apparently, five or six of the few remaining level-heads in the Republican Party have come to realize that continuous tax cutting combined with war-time spending and entitlement creation is a recipe for fiscal disaster. These few, brave souls are beginning to argue that taxes might have to be raised to bring our defecits back into the zone of manageability. To most rational observers, I suspect, this seems like a reasonable and appropriate course of action.

The problem as I see it, however, is that the Republican Party leadership and their radical foot soldiers are neither rational nor reasonable. Thus, we get quotes like the following from Grover Norquist:

"The spenders are fighting back. The deficit is the word they use because they think it sounds more acceptable than saying they want to spend more money."

Basically, Mr. Norquist is saying that these Republicans' concern for paying down our burgeoning deficits is really just a cover for increased government spending.

Hello? Aren't these deficits the results of government spending? Hey asshole, the spending already occurred. I'm sorry if you're a selfish, evil prick who doesn't want to pay for YOUR President's missteps and blunders, but I'll be goddamned if my kids are going to be forced to pick up your slack.

What Norquist and his ilk apparently fail to recognize is that the United States exists within a larger global financial system. Just like people or families can go bankrupt, so can countries. And just like the members of a bankrupt family suffer, so do the citizens of a bankrupt country. Norquist and friends might want to "starve the beast", end taxation, and ruin government, but if they do it's going to occur on the backs of people like you and me. They can declare that deficit payments equal spending and taxation equals rape and whatever other idiocies they want to spout, but that won't make our national debts suddenly disappear.

I hope, for the sake of the child my wife and I are going to raise, that the American people finally see these folks for the nihilists and radicals they really are.

Blogs, on the discovery of

In surfing around the internet on Thursday or Friday last week, I stumbled across a blog by Mike the Mad Biologist. 'Tis another high-quality blog, and it makes you realize how many smart people there are in this world. He has a fantastically hilarious post in which he converts Ann Coulter's infamous "kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity" screed into Snoop Dogg speak. Truly, a posting for the ages.

Weekend posts, on the dearth of

When I first discovered blogs, I picked a few and I would try to read them every. I was always frustrated that only a few bloggers (like Andrew Sullivan), post on the weekends. It'd be Sunday night, and I'd have nothing to read online. Now that I have my own blog, I've discovered that I don't post on the weekends either. Reason: Given the choice between blogging and spending time with my wife, I'd prefer to spend time with my wife. Blogging, it seems, is the perfect antidote to weekday, unemployment boredom, but can't hold a candle to some good ol' fashioned courtin'.

Anyway, it's Monday again, so if you're checking in, expect the usual deluge.

Sourdough Bread

Alright. So about 5 days ago I gave you guys a simple recipe for sourdough starter. In that time, if you mixed up the starter and set it out, you may have captured some wild yeasts. If, in fact, you did so, your starter should be bubbling and smelling nice and sour. Now it's time to make some bread and see whether the yeasts you captured are worth a shit. Here we go:

Ingredients

Sponge:
1 c. starter
1.5 c. warm water (105-115)
4 c. bread or all-purpose flour
2 tsp. sugar
2 tsp. salt

Dough
All of the sponge
1/2 tsp. baking soda
2 c. bread flour

Wash
1/2 c. water
1 tsp. salt

Directions

One or two days before you are ready to eat some sourdough, mix the starter, water,
flour, sugar and salt in a large bowl or crock. Stir everything together thoroughly. It should become fairly stiff and may be difficult to stir. Regardless, make sure everything is fully mixed. The resulting agglomeration is called the sponge. Cover it with some saran (I use a rubber band to hold it on), and let sit in a warm place until has doubled in volume.

Depending on how fervid your yeast is, it may take anywhere from 3-12 hours for the sponge to double in size. My first sponge took something like 12 hours, my second something like 4. I don't know why the great difference, but just keep an eye on it the first few times.

When the sponge has doubled, stir it down and sprinkle on the baking soda. Then, stir in flour 1/2 cup at a time. I have found that I can stir in maybe 1/2 a cup before the dough gets too stiff. After that, I have to knead in the flour. Either way, you want to stir/knead in at least 1 1/2 cups of flour (the recipe calls for two). Once you have mixed/kneaded rest of the flour in, proceed to knead the dough for another 5 minutes or so on a floured board. If it gets sticky, add another tablespoon. You can tell the dough is done when it is smooth and elastic. Poke it with your finger and it will rebound. If it doesn't, it is too slack and you need more flour. Cut the dough into two pieces, cover with a towel and let sit for 5-10 minutes. This will allow the gluten to relax and make it easier to shape. If the dough asks for a cigarette, just let it have one, it aids in relaxation.

Once the dough is good and relaxed cut, form each piece into a ball. This may require some additional kneading, slapping, patting and gentle persuasion. This next part is key: Line two round baskets or colanders with a dish cloth and sprinkle the cloth with flour. Place the loaves in the dish cloth, sprinkle some flour on top, and fold the cloth over them. Place both loaves in a warm place and let rise until double.

Grease a baking sheet. Place a tray with 1 1/2 c. water in the bottom rack of the oven. Preheat your oven to 400 degrees. Prepare the wash. When the loaves are risen and the oven hot, place the loaves on the baking sheet. Brush each loaf with the wash and, using a serrated knife, cut an X in the top of each loaf. Place the loaves in the oven and cook for about 30-40 minutes. When the top of the loaves are medium dark, they are probably done. Tap the bottoms of the loaves. If they sound hollow, they are done. Place loaves on a rack to cool for 5 minutes before slicing. Eat with relish. Or butter.

Notes

When I give times, they are obviously very rough estimates. Your yeasts may be very active, or they may be inactive. Just watch and guage. Basically, you want your sponge and your loaves to double. If you go beyond the doubling point, your dough may actually taste a little weird or collapse in the cooking for having risen too much.

Your first loaves are a test batch. You want to see if the yeasts taste good. They might taste nasty. If so, throw the starter out. If they taste good, though, keep that bad boy. Who knows, you might have captured something that will live for generations in your family.

Baking the loaves in a moist environment is key. This is what gives the loaves the crispy shell that you (or I) equate with good french bread. The wash achieves the same effect. You should find that 1 1/2 c. keeps the air moist for about the first 15-20 minutes. That's all you really need.

Very Important!
Do not forget to feed your starter after you make the sponge. To start out, I'd just put 1/2 cup warm milk and 1/2 cup flour in their. If the bread turns out good and you want to keep the starter, then go and add another cup of each. Once you have a full batch of starter that has fermented nicely, cover it tightly and put it in the fridge until you want to use it next.

01:02, 03/04/05

I just wanted to point out to you all that at 1:02 AM & PM today, the time and date made a very nice sequence. Isn't that nice?

I wish I were hunting.

I've been sitting in the office for going on 5 hours listening to punk music and indexing a discovery response. It sucks. After viewing Seamus' new pig-hunting device, I have to say that I would much rather be sitting in a stand, drinking beer and waiting for a feral pig to show up. Even better, I'd rather be bushwhacking a ravine searching for the aforementioned pig.

In the alternative, I wish I were cycling the Davis Mountain Loop. I'd like to end up at Balmorhea State Park, drink some beer, and soak in the springs.

Or I could just finish this index.

New EPA head announced.

Stephen J. Johnson, the current acting administrator of the EPA, has been nominated to fill that role permanently. I don't know much about his record, but according to my "contact" in the EPA, this is good news. Apparently, the career folk there who have worked with him (he's career too) think he is a good guy who actually believes in what the EPA does. Thank you very much, President Bush. It's nice to see you do something right for a change.

More stinkin' postmodernists

Aaron Swartz has a really funny entry on intellectual diversity at Stanford. If you have the time, read his post on David Horowitz, too.

Commute by bike for money.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer from Oregon, a true man of the people and a bicycle commuter, introduced the Bike Commuter Act this month to extend Section 132 fringe benefits to bicycle commuters. All I can say is, Thank You Earl!

It's about goddamn time. Bicycle commuting provides a multitude of benefits to both those on the bike and to other commuters. Whether it's strengthening the bike commuter, reducing air pollution, or freeing up road space and reducing congestion, commuting by bicycle is a fine thing. Likewise, in this age of declining oil supply, it's an intelligent and patriotic transportation option. The only mystery for me is why we give the lazy fucks in their cars unfortunate folk who have to drive to work a $175/month benefit for parking. We would be removing an incentive for people to drive and taking one small step towards freeing ourselves from the yoke of mid-east oil.

I would note that this is not the first time that Earl has introduced this bill, having done so in both of the last two sessions. Both times, I believe, it died in conference. Fortunately for some bike commuters, states and localities are beginning to attempt their own versions of this bill. Thus, in Seattle, the Regional Smart Commute Program offers $3/day for people who bicycle to work. I'd love to see Rep. Blumenauer's bill pass, but I suppose it's unlikely in the current political climate. Ah well, I guess that's what we should expect out of our majority party and its profound devotion to personal responsibility and self-sufficiency.

Welcome Seamus.

Seamus, the creater of the blog Burning Cities is going to be occasionally posting on this site. As an intemperate gun-totin' anarcho-progressive, I think he'll have plenty of good things to say. Of course, as a gainfully employed member of society, he'll probably be posting much less than, your unemployed host here.

Regardless, enjoy!

Shifting the burden of proof.

The Washington Post had an article the other day about the fact that the Arab guy charged with plotting to assasinate the President bears the burden of proving that is not a danger and can be released o bail. As the article notes, this is a sea-change in criminal procedure because, for most of our legal history, it has been the government which has borne the opposite burden: proving that the accused IS a risk. I must admit that I am not sure how I feel about this change.

The change was brought about by Sec. 6951 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 . If you search by that section, you will see a very short section amending 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)-(f) . The text of Sec. 6951, to be quite honest, provides absolutely no clue to what the amendment effectuates. Had you been a Congressman reading the bill for the first time, it would have taken you a bit of research to figure that out. Try it for yourself.

Assuming you don't have the time for this little exercise, here's the relevant amended text of 3142:

If, after a hearing...the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial...Subject to rebuttal by the person, it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community if the judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to believe that the person committed an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed...in 2332b of title 18 of the United States Code.

Section 2332b of title 18is the section that defines acts of terrorism. Thus, in short, if a person is accused of an act of terrorism and a judicial officer finds that they are a risk to the community, they will be jailed prior to trial. The only way they can be released is by proving they are not a risk.

So here's my issue. I'm generally a pretty rabid supporter of individual civil liberties. I find the USA Patriot Act to be an abhorrent piece of legislation, and think that the greater the limits on the Justice Department the better. Yet, in this case, I think that this bit of law is probably acceptable. I, for one, would prefer to see terrorists kept in jail until trial. The problem, I guess, is that there is no guarantee with this Administration, that someone is going to get a trial. Anyway, I'd like to hear you lawyers and/or civil libertarians weigh in on why this piece of law is or is not a good thing. I know the ACLU hates it, why do you?

Can you say "log"?

Alligators in Lake Washington?

Lono rubs it in...

Earlier today, I tried to assert that Robert Byrd is "my man". Lono points out that, as a resident of the District of Columbia, I don't have a man or woman. That's not entirely right; I do have a psuedo-woman. I can vote for her, but she can't vote for me. So much for representative democracy. If only I had a man (or woman!)...

Vulcanism at its finest

This is the coolest, continually-refreshing picture on the internet. It's a camera mounted on the Johnson Ridge Observatory at Mt. St. Helens National Monument. It's totally badass and a great way to get a feel for the changing weather out there. I check it about 22 times a day just to see what's going on. If you click on the link, note the bulge in the middle of the crater is the lava dome that started growing in October and continues to swell to this day. One day it's going to blow, and this little webcam will show you what it looks like (at a rate of one frame every three to five minutes). Too, too cool.

Republican effrontery

Texas Republicans are busy providing further proof for my assertion that the modern Republican Party is chockablock full of the slimiest, most dishonest, feckless bunch of imbeciles, liars and criminals to participate in politics since the days of Tammany Hall. Seeing as the national Republican leadership has done everything it could to protect Tom Delay short of declaring money laundering legal, I suppose it was just a matter of time before Texas state Republicans got in on the game.

My favorite quote from the woman sponsoring the bill to give the State Ethics Commission a veto over local prosecutors' decisions regarding ethics complaints:

"Why would they want to pursue something when there is no wrongdoing?"

Nice. Let's permit partisan political appointees determine whether crimes have been committed, instead of juries. If that's not a recipe for purity and wholesomeness in Texas politics, I don't know what is.

My man, Robert Byrd!

Has a great speech on the role of the Senate fillibuster to ensure minority representation is a reality. I can't speak to its veracity, but it's a good read.

NASCAR speedometers

They don't have them. I didn't know this. But this blog says it is so. Interesting. My dad used to always install a tachometer in our cars whenever they came without one. As a kid, I just thought it was cool to see how close the engine got to the redline, I never really thought about what it meant. As an adult, I would (if I had one) use the tach to ensure that I'm avoiding jack rabbit starts and maximizing gas mileage. Apparently there's more. As it turns out, though, you can also use the tachometer to calculate your speed. Who knew?

Well, my dad. And NASCAR. The theory behind this, though? Can anybody explain how it works? It seems like you have to know the relationship between one revolution of your engine and one revolution of your wheel. Is that right?

Anyway, even without knowing that fact, I think I'm going to start reading NASCAR blogs. I mean, I can't think of anything more boring than watching people drive in a circle, but maybe I can garner some insight into the sport through this secondary viewing method. I'll report back later with my results.

Readership trivia

Yesterday was a red-letter day in terms of readership. I had 32 unique visitors, a site record. This is small potatoes compared to the big blogs, but it's still kind of cool. Those 32 were divided evenly between new visitors and return visitors, and they generated 52 total page loads.

Thanks folks, I appreciate that you take the time to read this stuff.

Update
It occurs to me that this post suggests I am fixated on my readership levels and their growth. I promise, I'm not. As those of you who know me, I'm an inveterate ranter and raver, regardless of who listens/reads. To some extent, this blog is a way to pass the time and not feel like a totally useless slag when I'm not preparing job applications. I really wanted the post to be about thanking readers, not growing numbers. As they say, it's all about the quality of your readers, not the quantity... :)

Punish the good shots...

Having once been a teacher, I can sympathize with this guy's desire to shoot at his students with a pellet gun. Of course, I don't recommend it as a classroom management strategy, I just sympathize. In reading the article, I did find some humor in the fact that the guy would have been penalized more harshly if he had actually been a good shot.

Reader survey for BlogAds

I don't get money from BlogAds; I don't need it. There are, however, some very good blogs out there written by underpaid journalists that do. If you read them (Matt Yglesias, Jesus General, Talking Points Memo), do them a favor and fill out this survey. It's short and easy, and lets BlogAds know that these dudes get readers.

Postmodernists in the White House

Click here now, turn your sound off, and let Salon's one-day pass run. While it's running, click back here and read some more. When the advertisement is done, go back and read Eric Boehlert's Salon article on the debasing of the American press.

I could be wrong, as I'm no philospher, but it sounds very much like the Bush administration has completely embraced the idea that there is no objective truth. One could argue that for the last 50-100 years the American press has provided the facts underlying our political meta-narrative. We accepted the news media as the arbiter of political truth and we judged our politicians by what we read, heard or saw on the news. Now, atleast according to Ron Suskind, Eric Boehlert, and possibly others, the Bush administration seeks to undermine and, ultimately, destroy the news media as our nation's meta-narrators. Certainly, the right-wing in this country has been decrying the "liberal" media and, increasingly, the left-wing has been decrying the "so-called liberal" media. As a result, people of different political leanings have gravitated towards particular news sources. Not until this Administration, though, has there been a clear and coordinated effort to promote non-objective reporting and, as Boehlert suggests, destroy the public's belief in an objective media.

Whether the Administration believes the media is dominated by liberals, I think, is immaterial. They are basically trying to undermine the press as a source of metanarrative, create their own localized narrative(s), and then hold the two up as equivalent. My hunch is, the Administration thinks very little of the average voter and doubts their ability to accurately assess the validity of any particular narrative. Thus, they want the voter to see a multiplicity of local narratives (press, interest groups, President) and then settle on the President's by dint of his role our Leader. Certainly, this Administration and Republican party has done more to try and create a cult of personality and sense of infallibility around the Executive than any other I can think of.

Whether this effort will succeed is hard to say. Should the President succeed, though, I agree with Ron Suskind that it bodes ill for our democracy, which is predicated on an informed electorate making rational decisions.

Perhaps my philospher/historian friend in Chicago might care to weigh in on whether one could actually call George Bush a postmodernist?

Update
I ain't the only one who thinks this. Mike the Mad Biologist also notes that for this Administration words become meaningless, merely a means by which to evoke and manipulate voter reactions.

Rubber pants and all

The Poorman has a great post, most of which feeds off of this great post by Digby. They both discuss the fallacy of adopting a "southern strategy" and Poorman suggests the following:

Tom DeLay isn't a good 'ol boy - he's Dale Gribble. George W. Bush is a rich Connecticut preppy who gets everything from Daddy. If you're a fucking Democratic strategist, and the Republicans say "Democrats are elitist pussies", you don't turn around and say "hey, yeah: we need to stop being such milk-fed girly-men with our fancy hoo-hahs and doo-dads always putting on airs - why can't we be real manly men like Jonah Goldberg and all the virile and wholesome Republicans?" Try this, instead: "I've seen better than you dribbling out of a weasel's ass, you pompous, moralizing, lying hypocrite. When did nanny stop making you wear rubber pants to bed, Little Lord Fauntleroy? Thursday?" God, stop being such fucking pussies.

That's about right on, and funny to boot! Maybe Howard Dean can whip the Ds into shape?

More on the death penalty

Matt Yglesias has another smart post discussing yesterday's decision in Roper. He argues that the Court's reasoning is dubious in its reliance on evolving moral standards and that the decision is flawed in that it draws an arbitrary line (age 18) before which execution is unconstitutional. Matt suggests that the Court is basically legislating, and that line drawing is best left to the legislatures.

To some extent, I agree with Matt. It often seems that when courts get into the business of moralizing and line drawing, they tend to either mess it up, or piss people off. The best example of this is Roe v. Wade, but I'll try to think of some others. Nonetheless, the fact that a court's decision is messy or inflammatory doesn't necessarily make it incorrect. In this instance, the Court is saying that executing juveniles offends the 8th Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments and, that under current cultural and legal norms, it is cruel (and possibly unusual) to punish juveniles with death.

Scalia (and Matt to some extent) argues that the Court has assumed the role of moral arbiters and has applied the subjective values of 5 justices. The problem, though, is that the 8th Amendment incorporates language that is inherently subjective. What exactly is "cruel and unusual", how do establish that standard and whose standards do you apply? These are open questions. I suspect that the guys who wrote the Constitution understood this and chose to include a subjective standard such as "cruel and unusual" (instead of providing an exhaustive list of prohibited punishments) to ensure that the United States penal system could adapt to changing times. The truth is criminal penalties have changed throughout our Nation's history, and the Founders knew that.

In any case, assuming that the moral judgment here is valid, there is still the question of line drawing that Matthew raises. Matt argues that such line drawing, being arbitrary in nature, should be left to the political process. I kind of agree, but don't see it would work in this case. Step back for a minute and consider that in 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded. As a result, we now have cases that say you can't execute minors and you can't execute retards. Generalize that and you come up with a rule something like, "You cannot execute people of limited capacity." Try articulating that in a way that does not include some degree of line drawing. I don't think it's possible.

You could leave the definition of "limited capacity" up to the states, but eventually it's going to come back to the Court. Somewhere, sometime, a plaintiff would challenge a state's age of execution. Either the Court draws lines or we have a meaningless prohibition on the execution of "minors".

No more tests

Sorry for the mess on the blog today. I've been trying to find a way to post non-html graphs and charts. I have webspace courtesy of Verizon, but cannot find a way to convert Excel charts into jpegs or some other format which the blog will accept. Bah!

More on sourdough

This is NOT a baking blog. Nonetheless, I seem to spend a lot of time on this subject. Ah well. The inimitable AmyMac has asked me why San Francisco sourdough is so famous. To be honest, I don't know and, after some research, I can't find out. However, the following quote from James Beard in his classic book with the stomach-turning title, Beard on Bread, may provide some guidance:

I have found...that the starter can react differently within the same region. In New York City, I never had the success with it that I had in Connecticut or Long Island or Massachusetts. I have even found variations in its performance from one neighborhood of New York to another. Certainly it is just as unpredictable as Salt-Rising Bread, and I am not sure it is worth the trouble.

James Beard was to bread baking in America, what Yo-Yo Ma is to the cello; he perfected the art and made it accessible to the peons (like myself). If he says its hard and unsatisfying, it probably is. Likewise, if he found that starter success depended on geographic location, than it probably does. Thus, I think we might be able to infer from this quote that sourdough succeeds where good yeasts exist and I would assume that California has especially good wild yeast.

If you live in a region with poor yeasts, or you wish to cultivate a true San Francisco starter, you should check out Sourdoughs International. They collect sourdough cultures from around the world, and have a couple of San Francisco cultures. I recommend reading the bit about their Tasmanian sourdough. I like the idea that the woman who sent them the culture collected her yeasts by leaving the starter in a five-acre paddock. Now THAT is wild yeast!

Anyway, my point is this: if you're trying sourdough, don't give up if your starter doesn't work. My first three didn't when we lived 6 blocks from our current residence. Apparently, 6 blocks makes a difference. And, if you can't get your own wild yeasts, just buy some. That's what they invented internet commerce for...

Juvenile death penalty

I could say something witty about yesterday's decision in Roper v. Simmons, in which the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to execute minors who commit capital crimes. I could, but the Rude Pundit says it better.

I've only skimmed the opinion, but suffice to say it's loaded with stuff to piss off the right-wing. For one, Section IV discusses the "overwhelming weight of international opinion" against applying the death penalty to juveniles. No doubt, that's going to make Bill O'Reilly choke on his falafel. The Court takes pains to explain that international opinion is not controlling, but the mere fact that it mentions international opinion would likely send the Federalist Society into spasms. In fact, they'd be spasming right now except for one thing. The majority opinion states that its ruling is predicated on "evolving standards of decency".

If there's one thing that's certain to make the wingnuts blow their tops, lose their lunch, and lapse into babbling incoherence (not that we'd notice), it's the notion that the Constitution might change. This idea of a dynamic Constitution is captured in the following quote from Justice Stevens:

"In the best tradition of the common law, the pace of that evolution is a matter for continuing debate; but that our understanding of the Constitution does change from time to time has been settled since John Marshall breathed life into its text. If great lawyers of his day--Alexander Hamilton, for example--were sitting with us today, I would expect them to join Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court. In all events, I do so without hesitation.

Scalia's dissent tears at this idea, and is quite a fun read. He hates both the idea of evolving legal norms as well as the citation of international precedent. Thus, he has a long bit on international law, as well. I think it's interesting that he points out that the majority looks at what the States do, but only looks at what foreign countries say. I'll have to think about whether that's a meaningful distinction. One distinction I think he falls flat on is his complaint that the Court doesn't refer to itnernational law when considering criminal procedure (like the exclusionary rule), but does so when discussing punishment like the death penalty. This difference could very well grounded in notions universal human norms regarding life and death versus merely cultural or political norms regarding the intrusive power of the state/rules of evidence/etc.

Anyway, as the Rude Pundit said, this has been a good day for justice in the United States, and we should celebrate that fact.

Due to overwhelming demand

I'm going to post my sourdough starter recipe. Prepare yourselves. Here it is:

1 c. flour
1 c. milk that has been sitting on the counter for 8 hours.

Mix in an open jar or crock(see below) and cover with one layer of cheese cloth. Mix once a day. After 2-4 days, the starter will begin to smell pleasantly sour and it will look frothy. The frothiness and good smell mean that the starter has picked up wild yeasts and they are beginning to go to town. You can now either 1) feed the starter, or 2) use the starter. I recommend #1, so you can make sure the starter tastes good to you. I'll post the recipe later, you've got another 2-4 days before you'll need it...

Explanation
Sourdough is merely a means of collecting and cultivating yeasts that naturally exist in the "wild". Your starter is the culinary equivalent of a petri dish, providing food and a medium in which the yeasts can settle down and raise a family. Once they have developed a happy, yeasty community, they begin fermenting and emitting lots of CO2, which causes the frothiness and sour odor. Once this occurs, as long as you keep them in moderate temperature, and well fed, you can maintain that community indefinitely.

Troubleshooting
Here are three issues you might face whilst preparing your starter:

• Your starter turn grey and liquidy and smells quite nasty. Throw it out, it died.
  
• Your starter smells good, but is dry and crusty on top. That's okay. You probably didn't mix it or something. Add 1/4 c. warm milk, 1/4 c. flour and mix it in. Wait until it becomes frothy and nice again.
  
• You don't need your starter because you are going to Arruba for 2 months. That's okay. Cover it tightly and put it in the fridge. The wild yeasts will go dormant and liquid will pool on the top. When you return from Arruba, tanned and relaxed, mix 1/4 c. flour and 1/4 c. warm milk into the starter and leave it out of the fridge. It will revitalize and return to it's nice-smelling, frothy state.
  

Sample Sourdough Container
Below you can see my sourdough crock that I bought at a funky salvage store for $4.00. I use this crock because I am too legit to quit and have to maintain my bakerboy props....

Sourdough Crock 

P.S. By overwhelming, I mean that one person asked me to post the recipe.

Suggested reading

I just finished reading David Quammen's Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinction, and I can't recommend it too strongly. If you're at all interested in ecology, the environment, or man's relationship with nature, this is just a fantastic book. I must admit that I tried reading it during law school and couldn't finish it. However, now that I'm out, and don't have tons of reading already, it was a pleasure.

Quammen does a great job in laying out the history of evolutionary theory and traces it up through modern ecological science. Being that the book focuses on extinction, it's not particularly uplifting. Moreover, Quammen doesn't pull any punches, so there's no happy ending either. He ultimately concludes that the only reason we really have not to despair over the increasing ecological uniformity of the earth, is that despair is less fun than fighting. I'd agree, but it's still a sad fact.

I wish that Quammen had been able to add a chapter on what can be done to fight extinction. I mean, the solutions are implicit in the book itself (encourage habitat connectors, fight fragmentation, identify critical habitat and save it, etc.), but I think a more explicit discussion of possible policy solutions to extinction and the scientific justification for those solutions would have been useful. On the other hand, perhaps Quammen was right to leave that out, as it forces the reader to contemplate their own solutions.

In any case, 'twas a great book and I heartily recommend it for everyone, especially those feckless sons of motherless goats we dignify with the name "developers".