Disgusted Beyond Belief

Happy New Year

2012-01-18T21:18:00.003-05:00

As 2012 begins, it is looking about as depressing as 2011. Obama is finally showing a little backbone, but it seems more like election year bullshit than anything real. I guess if he wins, will really see what he wants to do when he no longer has to worry about re-election.

I still don't feel that motivated to post much. Maybe that will change, maybe it won't. Maybe it won't matter since by now there's no one really checking on this. Number one rule of blogging is that you need to update regularly, really, daily.

Sleep right now is more precious than anything. I can't function without it and I seldom seem to get enough of it. Here's to trying to get more sleep, starting now...

Enough with the lie about 47% paying no taxes

2011-11-15T20:14:00.001-05:00

To all those out there who keep saying this: Enough with the lie that 47% pay no taxes. EVERYONE pays taxes. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, state income taxes, local income taxes, property taxes. None of those taxes are progressive - they are all regressive. The only progressive tax is the federal income tax. Funny how that's the one that is attacked. What makes your lie especially transparent is the fact that everyone who works pays payroll taxes starting with the first dollar earned. What makes the lie especially evil is that in the same breath that you lie and say that 47% pay no taxes, you complain about medicaid and social security being too expensive, not mentioning that those programs are paid for with payroll taxes, something separately paid for from income taxes. Stop lying. Those who continue to do so are violating a Christian commandment. Not that this matters to me, but it allegedly matters to them.

Pass the lube.

2011-10-23T13:28:00.002-04:00

After seeing the Daily Show about how previously fully-funded pension funds were looted, then that looting was used as the basis to argue with doing away with pension funds altogether with the false argument that they were underfundede because evil employees through evil unions forced unfunded liabilities on those poor, defenseless companies... well, that was enough to make me want to give up entirely. The 1%, as it were, are screwing everyone else, and they are getting away with it. They got away with it. Nothing will ever change. They want us to believe that, but it is easy enough to do so when it is true. Things have not gotten better - they have stayed the same or gotten worse. The GOP is making sure nothing can ever get better. Only a filibuster proof majority of PROGRESSIVES with a progressive President could ever change that, and such a thing will never happen, because progressives have no voice.

So pass the lube, because we are good and screwed.

Totally Disgusted Beyond Belief at Debt Deal

2011-08-02T06:43:00.002-04:00

My blog title pretty much sums up how I feel now that the "debt deal" has passed.

Truly, if even with a Democratic Senate and President, all we get are, not just Republican policies, but crazy Republican policies, what the fuck is the point of even having a Democratic Party? At least if Michelle Bachman were president, it would all be above board.

Truly, if this is what we get, I'm going to vote for the craziest Republican mutherfuckers until the Democratic leadership actually acts, you know, progressive. Until they publicly support and fight for what Bernie Sanders says, screw them all. They think they have progressives over a log, I say the progressives should put them over a log. If progressives all refused to vote for them, and instead of voting for mealy-mouthed Democrats, voted for crazy Republicans, they'd have to listen.

The exception is primaries. I'd vote in primaries for the Sanders of the party (I know, he's independent, but he's progressive). Then if the Sanders actually won the primary, I'd vote for him in the general election. But if it is a mealy-mouthed Democrat who wins, they don't get my vote in the general. I don't want to reward their bad behavior. This isn't about wanting perfect progressive candidates. This is about wanting candidates who are progressive at all. If they aren't at all (which most aren't) then why bother voting for them at all? Voting GOP is more honest - that's the policies we get anyway.

UPDATE: As I wallow in my disgust, it occurs to me that by this criteria, I cannot vote for Obama again.

Finding a Babysitter is a Pain in the Ass

2011-07-24T14:12:00.003-04:00

The title of this post speaks for itself. My primary babysitter just moved to Utah. Not because she's a mormon, which she is. But the reason really doesn't matter. She was the greatest babysitter ever. And I've had some good ones, don't get me wrong. But she was like a superhero. She cooked, cleaned up, organized, disciplined. And that was without even being asked to. She just felt the need to do those things and so did it. She was seldom idle.

The displine was big as well. She actually got my daughter to fall in line and do what she was supposed to do. No one could do that before. And she wasn't mean, just firm and consistent. Which is of course what works. She said that my daughter reminded me of her younger sister, who is also a bit difficult to deal with.

But now, after two years, she's gone. It is sad, in that I had hoped for at least two more years, while she finished up her university time, but alas, no. Still, I'd have been here eventually, looking again for a regular sitter. Now it is just sooner.

It is a pain to find a sitter. Not just because all will be compared to the old one. Frankly, no one could measure up to her. But because the whole process is a pain in the ass. Trying to set up appointments (I have had some success with care.com, where I found "super-sitter"). Then dealing with schedules. And no-shows. And shows who then disappear. Really, the whole process. It is like interviewing someone to be a member of your family. I had one interview today. I have two more. Or maybe just one, if the next one doesn't show up. She was supposed to come now, but isn't here yet and did not call. I always ask them to call an hour in advance to confirm. I've found that tends to clarify who will actually be showing up so I don't end up just waiting and wondering.

I can't wait til my son and daughter are old enough not to need sitters or day care. Not just for the money. For the lack of pain. Only seven more years. Then my daughter can watch my son. She's almost six now. He's 2 1/2 years younger. I can't wait.

Not dead yet

2011-05-24T21:10:00.004-04:00

I haven't posted in ages, mostly because there is a cycle of not posting, so no one is reading, so I figure, why post. That and a lack of time or energy. I mean, what really could I say now that isn't already being said by someone else online, only better.

My time these days is divided between working, taking care of the kids, gaming (twice a week if I'm lucky, not at all if I'm not), and playing EveOnline in a few snatches of time here and there. And paying bills. Lots of those. My daughter is just about done with Kindergarten, which is cool. My son is talking and basically potty trained, which is a relief after almost six years of diapers between him and his sister.

And one more big milestone: the kids slept in their own bed last night - well, they slept together, and not in my bed, which happens basically never. Maybe they'll do it again tonight. I have my doubts.

Finally, I wish I had a new computer. I suppose I don't really need one - my last one I got the week before my son was born, so about 39 months ago, but it'd be so nice to get one. I even cleared some space for it. I could play computer games with my daughter together. Yeah, that's the ticket.

In any case, back to oblivion.

Its hard not to be depressed or apathetic about things

2011-01-17T22:28:00.003-05:00

Given the state of the country and where we appear to be headed, it is hard not to be apathetic about politics. It is like there really is no option for good. It is either evil or less evil.

I am reading "All the Devils are Here" - a book about the causes of the financial crisis. What strikes me first and foremost about it is that it is a demonstration of the fact that "the market" does not work - in the sense that it does not regulate itself. And the actors in it are not rational. After all, it was the financial wizards, the absolute best and brightest that capitalism can ever hope to have, that directly caused the financial crisis. These CEOs that are supposedly so irreplaceable and valuable that they have to be paid hundreds of millions of dollars - they lost billions upon billions and had to be bailed out or they would have brought down the entire world economy.

This rather shatters the bullshit that they are really worth all that much money. They aren't. Of course, they continue to be paid at that rate and they continue to be in charge and they are making more money now than ever before. They should be in prison.

Like I said, it is hard not to be depressed or apathetic. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change.

Julian Assange is NOT GUILTY of Rape

2010-12-12T08:17:00.004-05:00

At least under the way our law operates, Julian Assage is not guilty of rape. How can I know this? After all, I wasn't there. I don't know the specific allegations. But here's what I do know.

The last time Assange pissed off the powers that be, rape charges were filed against him, then quickly dropped (a warning shot across his bow, perhaps?). Now, many moons later, after he has again seriously pissed off the powers that be, leading to calls of his assassination for the horrible crime of embarrassing those in power, the charges are suddenly reinstated (With the timing clearly indicating that the reinstatement was not based on evidence of the crime, but rather, Assange's wikileaks activity). Further, an international manhunt is called for, putting him on an international most wanted list for crimes that NEVER would have put him on that list.

This is all extremely suspicious. Extraordinarily so. Multiple world governments want to destroy him, including ours.

Now, under these circumstances, say he was criminal charged of the swedish crimes under our standard, where he has to be proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Who can honestly say they don't have reasonable doubt about the validity of those charges now based on the circumstances? It is an established fact that there is an international conspiracy to take him down now, and it is clear why. This conspiracy is made up of governments with thousands of spies and trillions of dollars worth of resources - more than capable of manufacuring any charge against him and any evidence against him needed to support that charge.

Whether they actually did or not, or even whether he actually did exactly what he is charged with doing is now really irrelevant. The legal standard is reasonable doubt. That is definitively established. So he's not guilty.

Now the counter to this might be, well, we haven't seen the evidence against him. But given the circumstances, no matter how convincing that evidence might be, it simply can't be trusted. (Though I suspect it isn't anything particularly strong, because otherwise the governments would have leaked it and we'd see the video or whatever by now). But even if it was strong - the forces arrayed against him have the resources to manufacture it, so it can't be trusted.

Now - what if he confesses? Well, anyone will confess if threatened appropriately. Our government tortures people. But even without torture, false confessions are quite common. Again, under the circumstances, even a confession at this point would be suspect. And he hasn't confessed.

To be clear - I'm not saying he didn't do what he is charged with. I'm saying that legally, he could only be found not guilty at this point, because the circumstances create strong reasonable doubt.

Even NPR Toes the Wingnut Line - We Are Doomed

2010-11-18T20:59:00.003-05:00

Even NPR toes the wingnut line, as evidenced by this. If even NPR has surrendered to the Fox News storyline, it is obvious that free journalism in this country is dead and is not coming back.

Of course, evidence of this was already apparent years ago, when NPR steadfastly refused to use the word "torture" to describe torture, just because it was our country that did it and the White House played word games. Every time I listened to NPR and a story about the torture that we did (and continue to do) was mentioned as "enhanced interrogation techniques" I screamed at the radio that "no, it is fucking TORTURE you useless pieces of shit." Or something to that effect. They never heard me.

I will never ever give money to NPR now because of that gutless surrender to right-wing bullshit. I almost want to get called by someone at NPR asking me to give money, so I can tell them "no" and tell them exactly why I am saying "no." Their ombudsman had some article about this some time back, and it was the usual gutless bullshit that somehow calling it "torture" would be "taking a side" and not being "objective" when exactly the opposite is true. Since it is, in fact, torture, calling it by any other name is taking an ideological side. It is that same "he said, she said" fake balance of journalism. I'm sorry, but when one person says something that is objectively true, and someone else says the opposite, it is not "objective" to just report what each says and leave it at that. The only "objective" reporting would be to say that one person is telling the truth and the other person is not - and further, to investigate and find out if the person who is not is merely ignorant (and whether it is wilfully so) or if they are a lying sack of shit. THAT is objective reporting. Alas, it is gone forever.

Sure, there is the internet, but there is a huge portion of the populace that either gets their news from the Villagers on tv, or they read only right-wing blogs, and so our future is dead. The right-wing has already won. It is just a matter of how fast they can turn our society into a serf state (and it is already well on its way). Nothing can change this. There will be no more revolutions. There will be no hope. No one with any power will take the side of the populace. NO ONE. The GOP of course is against the populace, and the Democratic party is the only viable alternative - and they are utterly and completely pathetic and useless, and always will be.

We're fucked. Might as well unstrap your seatbelt and open the door and jump into oblivion while the car speeds toward the edge of the cliff.

Time To Change the US Senate to Simple Majority Rule

2010-10-17T16:23:00.005-04:00

It is time to end the filibuster. And secret holds. And every other rule of the Senate that allows anything less than 50 Senators block the Senate from acting.

I'm not saying this because it is the GOP who is currently in the minority, though it does provide illustration of why this is needed.

Were our government not so disfunctional and our political parties not so unevenly matched, it would not be such an issue. I see some value in letting a minority put the brakes on the minority. But we are way beyond any valid use of that power now.

The problem is, the minority powers of the Senate ALWAYS favor the GOP and do nothing for the Democrats. Here's why.

First, the Senate is already mismatched because of lots of low-population, deep red states that give two guaranteed Senators to the GOP. So the GOP already gets more Senators than its actual population would entitle it to. (They do the same in the House, with gerrymandering - something the GOP is also much better at doing than Dems).

Second, while some might be upset about losing this power when the Democrats are in the minority, I'd ask - Why? It is not like they ever really used it. When Bush was president (the moron Bush), the Dems basically caved in to everything he wanted anyway. They filibustered almost nothing. They never put secret holds that stuck. They didn't do diddly. But when the GOP is in the minority, on the other hand, they filibuster every fucking bill there is, whether they actually agree with it or not, just to keep the Democrats from accomplishing anything. They set massive new records for filibustering in just the past two years. So clearly, the filibuster is a power that only benefits the GOP. The Democrats never stick together well enough to ever use it anyway, so getting rid of it will lose them nothing. On the other hand, it will cost the GOP plenty.

Third, tied in to the second reason are the reasons behind it - the right-wing leaning media. If Dems try to block anything, Fox Noise is all over it, the rest of the media picks it up, and the Dems predicably fold like a lawnchair. When the GOP wants to block something, Harry Reid finds out about it in advance, and then instead of forcing an actual filibuster or making it a media blitz issue, he just gives up in advance and doesn't even bother to try to bring the bill to a vote.

So lets get rid of the minority-rule crap in the Senate. It only helps the GOP and hurts the Democrats. In the long run, it will be better for the Democrats to get rid of it, because at some point they may get a decent majority again, 55+ votes, and then they may actually get something done. Though I wouldn't hold my breath. At least this would remove a few more tools of power from the smug GOP assholes.

One last point - if there had been no filibuster, a lot of awfully good people would have been confirmed and in office right now. People like Dawn Johnson, who would have been the head of the Office of Legal Counsel - it is a national tragedy that she did not get confirmed. Of course, Obama could have done a recess appointment, but he's too much of a pussy to do that. Or maybe he never really was behind her anyway. Ugh. Another reason to be depressed.

3000 mile oil changes are bullshit

2010-09-12T18:49:00.004-04:00

Penn and Teller ought to do a show just on this. Ok, maybe not. This article I saw online today was only news to me in the sense that most "news" is news - that it was reported, not that it was known.

I have been driving since I was 16 years old (really, a little before that, but only in Driver's Ed). In all that time, I have NEVER gotten an oil change more often than about 7500 miles - and usually less often than that. And I've never had any issues. Now, perhaps this is because of the cars I have driven - all Hondas - but I think it is true of most cars. Getting an oil change more often than that is just a waste of oil and a waste of money. I've known this for over 20 years and I am someone who knows next to nothing about cars.

My car's manual (I have a Honda Civic, 1998) indicates regular maintenance every 7500 miles. I figure they are conservative, so I stretch it out to about 8000 miles or so. My car runs great and has never had any problems. I just take it to the dealer every 8000 or so miles and let them do whatever is next on the schedule. That is also the only way I ever get any oil changed.

So here's a great money saving tip for anyone who doesn't know - change your oil every 8000 miles or so - really, do what the article says and look up the information for your particular car.

News is Depressing

2010-09-09T07:43:00.004-04:00

There are so many things depressing about the news these days, it is even depressing to get the news from the Daily Show.

Obama has gotten fewer judges confirmed than pretty much any president. And like a good, wimpy, worthless Democrat, he's done nothing to push the issue and there's nothing in the news about it other than an occasional, isolated article. Of course, all of the Republicans who were panting and screaming about how it is unconstitutional to stop judges from getting up or down votes when Bush was in office are silent and given a free pass from the media, as they always do.

The GOP is also given a pass on all of the crazy shit they say - look at the Governor in, what was it, Arkansas? Who blew the debate and said crazy shit about headless bodies in the desert and she feels free to just walk away from reporters and ignore any questions about it - because the crazy-ass GOP voters will vote for her anyway. Hell, they are probably MORE likely to vote for her.

Meanwhile, Democrats, afraid of their own shadows, cave in at every turn and even look like they will vote for extending the tax cuts for the rich, cuts we can't afford. Of course, all of the GOP shouts about the deficit leave out the cost of extending those tax cuts for the rich, and again, they get a free pass to say whatever the fuck they want to say, facts be damned.

I ought to run for office - as a Republican - just to see how much crazy shit I can say and get away with. The Right-Wing media machine will give me tons of free press. And I won't have to worry about any opposing media machine to counter any crazy shit I say. If a Dem says something even non-crazy and true, it will get distorted and trumped up to the worst thing imaginable by the right-wing noise machine, which is then picked up by all of the MSM. But if you are a Republican, well, say whatever you want. You won't get nary a peep from the media criticising you, and you'll get free interviews on Fox Noise.

Someone just shoot me now.

Review of Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

2010-09-08T18:31:00.004-04:00

Over the past few months I've played in two different Pathfinder games, and I have to say, I'm impressed. I really like the Pathfinder rules and I like what they've done to the base classes, adding interesting little tidbits to them and also taking the tidbits they already had and making them better.

It feels like I'm playing a whole new edition, though it is really very close to 3.5 - 3.75 they call it. And it feels like playing Dungeons and Dragons. Which, sad to say, 4E D&D simply did not.

At this point, Wizards/Hasbro would have to do quite a number with a 5E to bring me back. Given where they've gone, it seems terribly unlikely. So it looks like, to me, Dungeons and Dragons now is officially a Paizo product. I know, they don't have that name, but they have its spirit. Hasbro foolishly gave it up to make something that simply isn't D&D.

In the meanwhile, I can't wait to play more Pathfinder. Right now, I'm playing a fighter in one game and a Paladin in another. It would be interesting to try a spellcaster next, though that may be a while, since these other games are just getting started. I've even been inspired enough to start doing writeups again, though I'll have to see how long that lasts. It does take a long time to do. I'm doing it for the Paladin. I'm having quite a bit of fun with him. Bjorn Skaarsgard the Just. Maybe I'll post a link to my writeups for him here.

Social Security SOLVED

2010-09-06T09:25:00.001-04:00

Since cutting taxes apparently increases revenue, according to the GOP, I have the simple solution to our Social Security funding crises - we cut the social security tax. Since cutting increases revenue, we should maximize this by cutting it from what it is now (what, 7.5% or something like that) to 0.1%. That should solve the crises forever - after all, cutting taxes by like 99% we should see revenue collected increase by 99%, right?

But we should write into that law a failsafe - that if the revenue actually does not go up, we cover any shortfall with an increase in the capital gains tax sufficient to cover it - no matter how high it may need to be. The GOP should, of course, agree to this immediately, because, after all, if tax cuts increase revenue, this failsafe would never actually need to kick in, right?

Best Description Ever of Why it is Pointless to Debate Theists about Atheism

2010-09-04T13:48:00.004-04:00

Larry has outdone himself - after ten years of attempting to debate and really understand and reason with the theists, he has figured out there is no point in doing so because they fundamentally have no interest in facts or reason, nor do they want to admit that this is so. But don't read my paraphrase - get it from the source.

I'd have to say that the only reason I would try to engage the ridiculous theist arguments now would be to answer questions for my children - to hopefully steer them into rational territory and keep them out of the coral reef full of bullshit that is religious thought.

Sick of the Useless Media

2010-08-20T15:20:00.003-04:00

I'm so sick of seeing "Ground Zero Mosque" everywhere - first and foremost because it IS NOT AT GROUND ZERO SO IT IS NOT A GROUND ZERO MOSQUE. But of course, that moniker has stuck because that's the narrative set by the right-wing media, and it just gets worse from there.

Anyone with half a brain (or less) knows this whole thing is a bullshit, manufactured "controversy" of the right-wing meant to bash "libruls" and distract the news cycle away from things that actually matter.

But my saying anything about it won't change anything. At least I get to rant about it, even though it doesn't matter. Nothing matters. The right wing won, and will always win. They have more money, they have much more disciplined media, and whatever they push out on Drudge will be the story of the day regardless of reality.

As for the citizenry too stupid to realize this (or care) or too xenophobic to care? Fuck them all.

Spam Removal

2010-06-24T18:24:00.003-04:00

It seems like all I ever do here is remove spam that seems to pop up in comments every week or so... usually with links to porn or viagra. Mostly porn.

I would like to post, but just don't feel like it given the time and energy available.

Plus, I've probably lost all my readers by now - heh - or most of them. If one actually cares about such things, the number one comandment is to post something every day, or at least on a regular, semi-weekly basis.

Politics is, as always, depressing. Obama is continuing all of the worst Bush policies - well, almost all - and otherwise is useless at advocating for anything I care about. He's a center-right president. Which makes it even more pathetic that the right-wing decries him on a daily basis as a far-left liberal. Which just proves that there is not a single syllable from the mouth of any national GOP figure worth listening to. And the Dems are just stupid. Blech.

Busiest Month Ever

2010-04-25T07:24:00.003-04:00

April has turned out to be the busiest month ever - as far as my current job is concerned. March was the second busiest. February the third, and so on. It has been a busy year. I have been busier before, I think, when I was in law school and working very long hours, but the difference then was that I had no kids. When two kids are factored in, the exhaustion level is much higher. If I could I'd have a babysitter every night - but as it stands, a few nights is enough to keep me going.

I'm so drained and tired it is hard to do much of anything - like write. I am thinking about it, at least. I'm reading Stephen King's "On Writing" for the second time - I just started it, really - I vaguely remember it from the first time I read it ages ago. Maybe I'll write something more substantial than a blog post - like a book.

I'm still generally depressed about politics - nothing really good is happening. I'm happy the health care bill passed, but it is so watered down that I'm not all that excited about it. It is most satisfying just to see the GOP crushed. The GOP has lost all seriousness and is now nothing but an empty PR/power machine. They believe in nothing, stand for nothing, and will lie with every word every day. It is disgusting. The Democrats are marginally better, in that they do believe in things, they just are inept at power or don't try very hard. The Media just makes the whole situation worse. Larry thinks the only solution now is revolution - he may be right, but what depresses me about that is that I know if he is right, there will also be no revolution. The only people who ever get mad enough to do such a thing these days are the nutty right wingers who want to "take their country back."

At least there is Jon Stwewart to watch for news.

It's just a book

2010-03-19T08:55:00.003-04:00

This is just so awesome - found via evovled and rational.

Followup on my Heath Care Issue

2010-03-17T09:24:00.002-04:00

As I recently wrote, I had a serious issue with seeing my doctor. I blame the GOP for blocking health care reform for this - but someone took issue with me for that (see comments here).

Not to totally repeat what I said there, but I still blame the GOP - it is true that the Doctor's office was a total asshole to me, but the point is, if we had reform (and say a Britain-like system) the Doctor's office would not have been able to be an asshole to me. One large reason for reform is to stop assholes in the system from preventing people from getting the healthcare they need. Another thing is to stop money (or lack thereof) from preventing people from getting the healthcare they need. Both money and assholishness were at issue in my case. Therefore, the lack of health care reform is front and center. And so the GOP are assholes. QED.

Broken Health Care System and Credit System

2010-03-14T12:25:00.004-04:00

It is interesting that when health care and the broken financial system are both the hot topics of the day that a situation relating to both in combination happened to me this past week. And no, I was not caught trading credit default swaps in hospital stock. I just got sick.

It started with an annoying "business decision" by my HMO, Blue Care Network, to get rid of all of its health facilities, doctors, and nurses. This was terribly annoying because all of our doctors were at a BCN facility, and this facility was right near our house. We'd gone there for years. I don't know why they did this. I'm sure it was probably an attempt to squeeze more money out of us somehow. In any case, the doctors there scattered to the winds. I decided to keep my doctor, for lack of any better option (it is hard to find an available doctor), and so I had my files sent to the new office where he set up shop, Mid Michigan Physicians. This happened last year, though not too long ago.

Unfortunately, our pediatrician left the state, so we decided to go with another one from the office - he moved to MSU. So now our doctors were in two different practices. That was only slightly inconvenient, however, compared to what I had to deal with last week.

One of the "joys" of having kids in day care is that they often get sick and then bring it home and we all get sick. My daughter generously got a nasty cold that she then shared by coughing all over me and spitting in my face and mouth on a frequent basis. So I had some long nights of misery coughing and otherwise not sleeping well. My eyes also got some sort of infection and I was having trouble seeing in bright light. Now there's not much that can be done for a cold - so I would just have let it run its course, but the eye issue was concerning because it made it difficult to drive when it was sunny with lots of snow on the ground. That concern made me want to set up a doctor's appointment.

Now I had not had an appointment with my doctor at his new practice yet. Which was why I was shocked to discover when I did try and get an appointment that they would not schedule one because of a billing issue. I asked them how could I have a billing issue when I've never visited that practice before? They said it was from 2005, with a doctor whose name I'd never heard before. They said they did not know who the doctor was, either. So then I asked, how could there be a billing issue for a doctor who was never at their practice from a time when I had never visited the facility. No answer to that. And they couldn't give more specifics because the bill was so old it was sent to their collections agency. They said they could do nothing about it. For some strange reason the address they had on file for me was one over 10 years old. It was strange because I had never been there before and so the only address they should have had was my current address (one I've had for 10 years).

I called back several times, talked to the billing manager. They would do nothing. They told me they couldn't tell me anything more. They told me only the collections company could do anything and I had to figure it out with them. Meanwhile, my primary care physician, the only person who can approve certain treatments, referrals, and everything else was now unavailable to me.

The collections company could tell me nothing. The records were so old they were in storage. They had the same old address. They said that they had on file that mail they sent to me was returned. Apparently looking my address up in the phone book was too complicated for them, since I have a listed address that has been publicly available for 10 years (and there are no other names in the phone book like mine). So the best they could do at the collections company was order the records out of storage and send them to me. This could take weeks. In the meanwhile, no doctor appointments for me.

Needless to say, I was gloriously pissed off. I'm going to find another doctor. That will take time. In the meanwhile, though I am double insured, I can't get a fucking doctor's appointment. Republicans can all fucking die. They don't want to fix healthcare? They can just fucking die. And fuck the Democrats for not passing a public option. They could do it right now, but they won't. Fuckers.

Raising Atheist Children in a Christian Nation - There are no Sunday Schools for Atheists

2010-02-26T18:10:00.007-05:00

One of my biggest worries with my children is how I can raise them to be properly skeptical (and hopefully atheist) in a Christian Nation. [1] It is funny, now that I think about it - typically you see the Christian parents being the ones so worried their children will be corrupted by a non-Christian education in public schools. I'm not worried about secular schools. I am not worried about the culture at large as much either. I do worry about day care, which is a Christian day care. That I feel stuck with given the limited options (and limited funds). As I've discussed before, I have no interest in having a nanny again.

What has concerned me about day care is what my daughter comes home with. I see little coloring book pages with religious themes. I hear her talk about religious things, though rarely. I guess I'm hoping that when she starts school in six months, this will all become a dim memory. I take some small comfort in the fact that I went to a religious day care as well when I was a child and it didn't stick - perhaps because my parents are not at all religious and we never went to church. Still, I wonder how to deal with the whole religion issue with my children.

I don't want to be dogmatic. I want them ultimately to learn to think for themselves. You can't simply teach the "right" things - you need to give a toolkit to kids so they can figure things out for themselves. At the same time, though, kids need to obey and do what they are told, at least when they are very young - for their own safety. Kids also rebel - and go and do the opposite of what their parents want, at least, that's what I've read or heard about. I never really did that, but I understand the concept. So the difficulty is - how do you really go about doing this?

One idea I have is social - if my kids hang out with other kids who are also raised to be skeptical, then there's the good peer pressure -or maybe lack of bad peer pressure. Except I don't know anyone else here who is atheist and has kids. Maybe I should try and find a local community of atheists.

I've heard of atheist summer camps and such - really skepticism summer camps. I really want to send my kids somewhere like that someday, but that is only a short bit of the year.

I worry about what religion could do to my kids. I worry about one or both of them coming home one day and declaring he or she is now a Christian. I'd still love them, but I would feel like I failed somehow. I'd feel like a part of them is dead - or brainwashed. I don't want my kids to grow up to be another of the superstitious idiots that populate our nation and our planet. I want them to question. I want them to be skeptical of what they are told. I want them to be thinkers.

It is funny that Christianists call our schools horrible and godless, but they really aren't - most people in public schools are Chrsitans, and much of that seeps into everything. They aren't taught real skepticism. They will probably never hear the word "atheist" spoken. It is a secular education, but not a godless one. I should be the one who is concerned, not the Christian parents. They really are only upset because the schools are not more fully Christian-dominated than they already are.

If only there were truly "godless" schools - where real skepticism was taught. Where kids were taught that religion - all of it - is superstition. Where kids are taught that "god" is a purely human creation. Where kids learn to think. Regular schools will never do this. Hell, there isn't even a "sunday school for atheists." There ought to be. Hell, that is a good line to add to the title of this post. (And now I have...)

I have resolved to do something about that. I don't have a lot of time, but I'm going to at least get a start on this. I will see if I can find others in my community who feel as I do, and who aren't infected by religion. I'm going to then see if I can get some interest in putting together something like a Sunday School for Atheists. Maybe it is something I can just do for my own kids. They'll probably think I'm nuts. Maybe the better way to do it is more subtle - not any set time or place, but just a planting of the seeds of skepticism wherever I can find it. Maybe the Sunday School for Atheists needs to be more for parents - to teach them to do the same with their own kids. I do this already where I can. With the few times I've heard some talk of Jesus out of my daughter, I've asked her, "how do you know that's true?" I want her to think about that, rather than challenge things directly. Make her defend it with logic and reason - with the idea of showing her that it can't be defended. Thankfully, she really hasn't said much along those lines, and will soon be done with day care, so maybe I should not be so worried.

Maybe a first step can be coming up with a curriculum - and posting it online. In fact, I bet someone has already done something along those lines somewhere. I am going to search for it and build on what I find.

Now if only every parent would do this, maybe we'd have a better world - where politicians can't so easily prey on the ignorance and superstitions of the public. Ok, now I'm dreaming.

[1] Of course, I would dispute the title of "Christian Nation" for the United States. We have a secular Constitution that explicitly separates church and state. So I vehemently contest any attempt to call this nation an officially Chrsitian one. But culturally, there are a lot of Christians to deal with, and they tend to control every elective office at every level. This is the community that my children will be growing up in. So this is what I have to deal with.

Carnival of the Godless on February 28

2010-02-15T06:56:00.005-05:00

Larry has graciously asked me to offer an article for the Carnival of the Godless on February 28, and I'd be happy to do so. This gives me two weeks to think of something... but I have a few ideas in mind. In the meanwhile, anyone who would like to participate - spread the "good word!"

Head In the Sand

2010-02-06T07:03:00.004-05:00

I've tried to have a discussion with some right-wing folks about the health care bill, but as with most things, it has proven to be totally pointless to even try. These people have their head in the sand and refuse to see there is a problem. They deny that anyone is denied healthcare for being poor. They cite laws that require EMREGENCY care and then equate that with saying that everyone gets health care, apparently oblivious to the fact that most health care is not emergency care. They also ignore the fact that even emergency care will saddle you with a huge bill that can bankrupt you and put your family on the street, which is a reason for the poor to avoid going to get even emergency care.

I mean really, how can you even have a discussion with someone whose head is six inches under the ground? What can you say to people like that? Health care is doomed. Everything is doomed. People are morons.

I guess I'm in a gang

2010-01-26T18:14:00.002-05:00

The 7th Circuit, in an appalling (yet increasingly unsurprising) ruling, holds that it is entirely rational to equate the playing of Dungeons and Dragons with being in a gang. This, in the face of ZERO evidence presented that there was ever any such issues. This opinion is so stupid it defies words.

Shadowrun Becomes Real

2010-01-23T11:50:00.003-05:00

No, I'm not referrring to a sighting of a dragon near Mt. Fuji in Japan, though certainly the date for that approaches. I'm instead referring to a question raised by the recent Supreme Court ruling finding corporations have rights like people - Can corporations now also bear arms? Why not? It is the same logic. The corporations need to protect their assets and personnel. So why not have private corprate armies? Welcome to the world of Shadowrun, chummers!

I'm Glad Brown Won in Mass

2010-01-20T17:37:00.005-05:00

I'm glad Brown won. Becuase Democrats are WORTHLESS. Jon Stewart summed it up best this week when he pointed out that even after this loss, Dems have an 18 seat majority, far more than the GOP ever had, back when they had control, when the GOP did whatever the fuck they wanted, got passed whatever they wanted. The Dems had 60 seats and didn't do diddly. You can be damn sure if the GOP ever had 60 seats and the White House that the tax rate would drop as your income increased, so only middle class and lower class people paid taxes, Christianity would be made the offiicial religion of the nation, and all non-GOPers would all be vassals or in Gitmo right now. The Dems screwed around for a year, did nothing, and now will lose health care - not that the bill they would have passed even with 60 seats would have been worth anything, it not having a public option. Might as well kill it now. In any case, I'm done.

The country is doomed. Most we can do now is buy popcorn and watch it all slowly burn.

Democrats have No backbone - In other news, water is wet

2010-01-17T16:28:00.003-05:00

So surprise, surprise. The Democratic Party has 60 seats in the Senate and still can't get anything worthwhile done. Or they don't want to. Because there is no party representing the people - there is a party representing the monied elites and another party representing the psychos and the monied elites. The media represents - the monied elites.

The Dems might lose the Mass. Senate seat, but even if they keep it, they'll keep it with a right-wing friendly candidate. Where the FUCK are the progressives? Why can almost none of them exercise any power?

I can see how some might wish for a revolution at this point. Of course, no such thing will ever happen. Sigh.

It sucks when your pre-verbal child gets sick

2010-01-16T14:48:00.003-05:00

My son is sick, as I mentioned earlier this week. Fortunately, it has turned out to be a (relatively) mild cold. He's had some coughing, but not much. His nose has run, but not much. He had a fever at one point, but not since. In other words, he's doing fairly well, all things considered. I have worried that I might be getting sick, but I might just be tired - that is probably it. My wife may be getting sick, but she had the misfortune of lots of tiny, drool-soaked fingers shoved into her mouth several times. I've been deft enough to keep my mouth out of reach, though my son sure has tried! He laughs when he does it, too. He loves to grab for my face, particularly after he's climbed on top of me while I'm laying down.

Oh, and my daughter is cold-free thus far, which is great, though she also has been getting into things, and may have drunk from my son's cup.

My wife is still pursuing a nanny, but with less vigor now. She's had several candidates cancel meeting because they found something else, and several who she talked to a few times who have now vanished. It is exceedingly difficult to find someone decent. And even when you think you have, you can turn out to be terribly wrong about that. She's really about ready to give up on the notion, I think. Maybe it is because our son's sickness has turned out to be not all that bad this time, maybe it is because of the difficulty even in arranging a meeting with a nanny candidate, maybe it is the money we will save - probably it is a combination of the above.

All of that said, it still sucks when our son is sick now, because he's not quite talking. We can't ask him where it hurts or how he's feeling. He can just cry, for the most part. Yesterday, I stayed home with him, and at one point he was crying miserably. He likes to throw himself on the ground in passive protest when he's upset. It is kind of funny, actually. I wasn't sure if he just wasn't feeling well or what it was. It turned out that what he was really upset about was he was bored - once I took him downstairs and gave him some entertaining things to do, he was happy as a clam. You'd have thought he was being tortured with the wailing he was giving, but no, he was just bored. I can't wait til he starts talking in sentences. I am betting it will be maybe three months from now - that's when my daughter started - when she was about 26 months. She hasn't stopped talking since. Of course, when she doesn't feel well, sometimes she refuses to tell us what is wrong, but at least we know she can if it gets right down to it.

What I worry about most is ear infections - those won't go away on their own. It is a pain to go to the doctor to screen for them - much better to only go when there is a specific complaint about ear pain. Three months to go!

Day Care and Long Night

2010-01-14T05:28:00.004-05:00

As I indicated in my previous Nanny Saga post, my kids are back in day care. I don't want another nanny. I'm rather fed up with the whole process/concept. My wife, however, is still looking for another one - she doesn't like our son in day care. She's worried he'll get sick. I've told her he WILL get sick, but it won't be the end of the world. He's older now than he was when he was there last - he should not have as much trouble.

Well, now it looks like he's sick. He was screaming last night and needed to be held - he's been in bed with us (and with our daughter) most of the night. I'm not sure what the trouble is. It is frustrating when they are this age because they can't tell you what is wrong. He can almost talk, but not quite. My wife thinks it is an ear infection. I don't know what it is - it could be a sore throat as a precursor to a cold - his nose is not running, he hasn't been coughing. We may be able to tell more this morning. If it is an ear infection, that means a trip to the doctor for antibiotics. That is a pain generally, made more so by the fact that our regular doctor's office closed as the insurance company totally pulled out of having doctor's offices. Yes, I hate health insurance companies - this sort of crap just infuriates me. The old office was close to our house and we liked the doctors. Now we have to go all the way across town.

Maybe we'll be able to tell more this morning. In any case, I'm sure my wife wants him out of day care again more than ever - but I still don't. I don't want to deal with nanny crap again. I frankly don't trust anyone to be our nanny. With what we can afford to pay, I don't think we can get anyone of sufficient quality - and frankly, I don't want to mess with all of that again.

Kids get sick. We had a nice run of nearly 8 months when we had no sick kids at all. It also cost us an arm and a leg and led to two different big nanny dramas. I've had enough.

Unless my son gets so sick that a doctor orders us to take him out of day care, that's where I think he should stay. My daughter loves it there - she sees her friends and has lots to do. I think my son is warming up to it to - he's not outgoing like my daughter, but once he warms up to people and a situation, he's fine (not unlike myself). It remains to be seen if my wife can accept this - she's already extremely upset about this. It didn't help that day care people did something stupid yesterday - when we went to pick them up, our son was being wheeled around in the main hallway (which goes past the outside door) wearing only a thin white short-sleeved tshirt on top. They thought he was too warm in the room and took off his over shirt and then never put it back on. My wife has a big thing about cold - irrational really - but beyond that, taking him around without a shirt like that was just stupid.

My thought is that at least at day care when someone does something stupid, you can complain to a supervisor who can then check in on our son and make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. With a nanny, we won't know if something stupid happens, and even if we find out, its not like we can verify it hasn't happened again. I told my wife to complain (well, complain again, she certainly did plenty of it already) today and that they will keep an eye on things.

It is going to be a long winter.

The Child Care Deduction is a Joke

2010-01-12T18:57:00.004-05:00

It is tax time, or soon will be. One of the major deductions we have is the cost of child care. Specifically, we have a dependent care reimbursement account, which is a pre-tax deduction from pay that then can be used to pay for child care. This is certainly helpful. The thing is, the total limit for the year is a joke. It hasn't been raised in ages. It hasn't kept up with inflation. It hasn't kept up with anything.

Right now, with two kids, in a cheap day care, our day care costs are about $341 per week. With a nanny we paid over $500 per week. That comes to either $17,700 per year or $26,000 per year. And the limit on a child care dependent reimbursement account for the year? $5,000. As I said, it is a joke. Especially since the costs of child care in my area are probably rock-bottom compared to many other areas of the country. And this is with only two kids. You have many families with more kids. That $5,000 amount is a flat rate, regardless of the number of kids you have.

This really needs to be increased. In fact, an increase is ridiculously overdue. Unfortunately, I don't see an increase on the horizon. I'd say write your congress person, but I don't think three letters will do it.

Politics are Depressing

2010-01-10T14:18:00.003-05:00

Politics are depressing. And annoying. The discourse is base, stupid, emotional, and totally detatched from reality. The media (at least on TV) is basically worthless. Papers aren't much better. Only a select set of sources does any actual reporting or investigation - you know - what used to be journalism.

Lies get repeated, all of the major media players are basically stenographers, they get their marching orders from the Druge Report and whatever the latest right-wing meme is and the electorate has a huge block of people who are ignorant and proud of it--people who take joy out of pointing out how uneducated they are; people who think the world is a few thousand years old; that think an imaginary friend talks to them; that think science is just a scam; that think neutral, objective analysis is biased because it doesn't reach their pre-determined right-wing conclusions.

We are screwed. Nothing will change that.

Close of Nanny Saga

2010-01-09T06:00:00.002-05:00

UPDATED

This morning after I stepped out of the shower and got dressed, I picked up my cell phone and discovered a message, a variant I've seen many times. It was from our nanny. She said she woke up and her eye was messed up, like pink eye, as it she said it had been earlier in the week. She said she would try putting in eye drops she had gotten to see if it would get better and that she would be here in half an hour.

Half an hour later, she was not here. I sent her a text message asking if she was on the way. No response. I called her. No answer. My wife did the same. No answer. My wife had to do a call for work and so was busy with that while I watched our son. Finally, she was done, and I left for work while she stayed home with the children. Because of the weather she was half planning on trying to work from home today anyway (she has a long commute), but with the kids and no nanny, she knew she would get no work done so she took a personal day.

I went to work and got going on things. Around noon, I called home to see if my wife had heard anything from the nanny. Nothing. I texted her again. Nothing. Finally, fed up with this, and having seen this happen on several occasions before, I called and left her a voice mail to call me. Now. Then a few minutes later, I texted the same thing. On too many occasions we find out she can't come with a shor text message in the morning followed by a full day (or more, sometimes a whole weekend) where we call or text her and get no response. She usually gave some excuse about why she couldn't answer. To tell the truth we put up with it because she did show up for work the next work day and she seemed to be doing a fine job with the kids and things like putting away dishes and clothes for us (which helps a lot).

But enough was enough. Not showing up for work and then ignoring calls about where you are after you say you will be in is unacceptable. So I left my message for her to call me. She didn't call. She did, however, immediately text back that she did not have to call me, that she did not have to put up with our "bullshit" and she didn't have to "raise our kids" and that she would come tomorrow (Saturday) morning to give us her key and get her last check. Needless to say, I was stunned. She had not said anything about this before. She seemed just fine the previous day, though it was a long day, since she came early and stayed a bit late as my wife was late getting home because of the weather (and I was VERY late). I make no claims of perfection, but I do know that working as our nanny was not exactly the worst job in the world. For the most part, she was on her own all day.

But maybe we should not be so surprised. Her childhood friend who had introduced us did tell us that she had gotten our nanny a few other jobs in the past that she had abruptly quit. Still, at the time, we had few options, and she did do fine with the kids. She also promised she would never do such a thing to us - she said she understood that we depended on her for both of us to go to work for our own jobs.

After her rather nasty text message, I told my wife, and she then called our nanny's friend, our former (and sometimes current) babysitter. She told my wife that she and our nanny had a stupid argument two weeks ago and then drove off, leaving our nanny's friend and her sister stranded - in Detroit, no less, 95 miles from home. They had gone down there for some sort of party or some bar thing. Since that time, they haven't spoken, and it sounded like the friendship was over. Our nanny's friend (damn, it would be easier to use names...) apologized and did not sound terribly surprised that our nanny had done this since she has done it before. She also said that she thought our nanny might have recently broken up with her boyfriend, and so was acting out of sorts.

I do wonder now if something else may have contributed. Several weeks ago, our son, who is now 23 months old, burned his finger. Our nanny said she did not know how it happened. Our daughter wasn't much help with that either, being four, but from the pattern of the burn - a straight line down across the diagnol of the finger, I guessed it was probably from a hot tap water stream. The water in the bathroom can get quite hot and that is something that would leave that sort of pattern. My wife worried it was the gas fireplace, but that has a flat glass front and so a burn there would not be able to be in a thin line on a finger like that. It would have been wider.

Looking at the computer downstairs, I noticed that it had been used during the day and that there were lots of visits to our nanny's facebook page. We also found some document she had made that looked like a forged doctor's excuse note from work - something you'd expect from a delinquent high school student (our nanny is 24, btw). It was for someone we didn't know, but who we later determined was a friend of hers (not her boyfriend, though). Our daughter did say that when our son was burned, the nanny was downstairs. For some reason, I thought she never went down stairs. We have a gate blocking it and our son really isn't allowed down there (too many small objects and things) and with just one person at home, you can't be downstairs while one or both kids are upstairs. But the logs showed she was down there every day. Now, this wasn't necessarily a big deal - our son naps in the middle of the day, and our daughter occasionally does as well (though now that is rare). If both kids are sleeping, I really don't care if the nanny is downstairs on the computer - but if she is going down there even when they are awake and moving around upstairs, that is an issue.

Rather than really get into it with her, I decided to simply lock the computers with a password. That would remove any incentive to go downstairs at all. She could find plenty of entertainment upstairs - between all of the DVDs and cable channels we have, it wasn't like there was nothing for her to occupy herself with if the kids were sleeping, or even if they were playing without her direct involvement. And that is all fine. I set this up just before the holidays. I wonder if she found it then, though, since she did not watch the kids much, or my wife was here, right up until just before New Year's. This week might have been the first week she was here where she noticed. I don't know. Maybe that reduced her interest in doing this job. I can only guess. We never said anything about it. We certainly never told her she could use the computer, though as I said above, it didn't bother me if she only did it when they were sleeping. The burn incident, though, convinced me that she didn't or couldn't limit herself to that. The burn led to a nasty blister, and I simply couldn't allow that to happen again.

So maybe the lack of computer access contributed. We'll never know. I suspect that she really did not have any issue with her eye, but simply did not want to come today for whatever reason. That may have been true most of the other times she has claimed some sort of strange illness as well. That happened probably at least a half-dozen times. And truly, that did not necessarily bother me either. People do get sick. Or have other reasons they can't come to work. I do wish she had been honest about it. We were always very accomodating. What irked me, really, was not that she didn't come, but that she would then be unreachable - so we would not know what was going on or when she might be back.

I wonder if she'll even show up tomorrow for her check, or if she'll send her sister or someone to get it. My wife thinks she'll be too chicken to show up. I think she's probably right. I really don't care now. We had another person who has subbed when the nanny was sick. We asked her if she wanted to be our full time nanny. She thought about it, but declined. She has a bunch of other job prospects right now that she is excited about, so she does not want to commit. Which is fine - with her, I at least am fairly certain if she does commit, she will stick to it. It is good that she is upfront, rather than working for a bit and then quitting, for instance.

With her turn down, we have no other options. There is a web site for finding child care. We have had some luck finding babysitters there. We signed up for it again (our subscription had lapsed). That cost some money. I almost wish I hadn't now. Because we've decided we will just send the kids back to day care. The day care said they would take them. It has been eight months. They will get sick again. They will get the mind poison that is religion. But I can maybe do something about that. Maybe. It is not like we have a choice. The other day cares nearby simply aren't as good or really all that close. It sucks having to deal with this.

Day care will be much cheaper - about 1/3rd cheaper or more. And during the summer, my wife's mother will be here and we can reduce day care down to 1 day a week, saving even more money (need to keep a day to keep the spot). She can come every summer, which will be good for when the kids have summer vacation after they start school.

Day care is a pain. Haivng to bundle them up to take them in will be annoying, as will doing the same to pick them up. It will be a bit easier now that both are older. I'm not looking forward to it. But the cost savings at least makes me feel good. Not having to deal with nanny taxes or nanny issues also makes me feel good. I'll just have to do it this once, and then be done with it.

So my nanny saga now comes to a close. Tomorrow morning I won't have to worry about nannies anymore. We did day care before, so we can do it again. With my son older, he should do much better than he did as a baby. Wish him luck.

UPDATE:

Now it really is over. This morning, only 12 hours after I sent a message asking when the ex-nanny would come over today, she sent a message that said "half an hour." Over an hour later, her sister shows up (showing the nanny is truly gutless) to "get the check." I asked her for the house key. She said she didn't know anything about that. I told her no key, no check. She said she'd go to her car and call her sister about that. She went outside and then left. An hour later she was back, this time with the key. My wife still did not want to give her the check because we wanted the nanny to come so she could at least offer an explanation. Her sister said she would come later today if we give the check now. I told her I did not believe her. She then got very hostile and started complaining about how she was owed money from that check, etc. We told her this was not our problem.

I offered a compromise - I said we'd give it to her if her sister, our former nanny, would talk to my wife on the phone for two minutes. She refused, got very hostile, made complaints about how she was watching someone else's kids right now, and so forth. She still called, but our ex nanny refused to talk to us. Her sister was extremely rude, started making threats about how she was going to call a "higher authority" and call the police. Really, all we wanted was some sort of explanation beyond the very short and rude text message we had gotten yesterday. Finally, when it was clear our ex nanny would never talk to us, and after some nasty things her sister said to us, I decided just to write the check and say good riddance. Her sister took it and slammed the door on the way out, showing she was just as rude and immature as our now ex nanny.

Later, we talked with our ex nanny's now former friend who had introduced us. She explained in more detail what happened two weeks ago - not only was she stranded in Detroit, but our ex nanny had gotten drunk and tried to choke her after getting hostile about when they would leave and how.

This whole experience has soured me on the notion of even having a nanny. We really could barely afford it as it was, and only with scrimping on everything else. And even that did not give a huge rate of pay - probably about 500 dollars a week. Of course, there are far worse jobs than ones where you can stay indoors all day, watch TV, and set your own agenda (as the kids permit). It is not like we were there breathing over her shoulder - we were at work.

It sounds like she is very emotionally unstable, and it is probably good she is no longer watching our children. We will not be replacing her. The kids, as I said, will go back to day care on Monday, at least through June. They will get sick and it will be a pain, but there is nothing we can do about that. At least we'll be able to start adding to savings instead of depleting it. It was about gone as it was.

Some people truly never grow up and just are not responsible adults. I have been quite fortunate for my circumstances.

Winter Misery

2010-01-08T07:11:00.004-05:00

Yesterday we got our first real big snowstorm of the season. It really wasn't that much snow - maybe 7 inches. But the timing was horrible. I had to drive to Detroit for a hearing at 9am. That meant getting up at 5, leaving the house at 6, and hoping that traffic wasn't too bad. It wasn't, so I got there just before 8.

The hearing then lasted all day, with no lunch break, and we finished around 4:30 or so. It took until 5 to get out of there, which meant hitting rush hour traffic. But that was almost irrelevant, since in the meanwhile, it had started snowing and none of the roads had yet been plowed. It is a 93 mile trip in total. Between traffic and unplowed or semi-plowed roads, it took over four hours to drive back home. Four grueling hours, where I often could not see the road or what lane I was in, I couldn't see out of my window very well as it kept having frozen patches that my wipers would miss right in my line of vision, and where my neck and shoulders were killing me. I got home at 9:30pm.

For whatever reason last night I did not sleep well. I will probably have a headache all day today. I don't know why I couldn't sleep. I didn't have anything in particular on my mind, though I probably could have - I got some interesting news at work Wednesday and I have a TON of work to do this month, work I have no idea how I'm going to fit it all in. But I wasn't thinking about any of that last night - I was just exhausted and wanted to sleep. Even now, I really don't feel anxious about anything - I 'm tired and want to rest and not think about anything and I'm really not thinking about or worrying about anything.

Tonight is gaming night in Chelsea. That is 57 miles away. After last night, I am about as enthused about driving as I am about putting my hand down the garbage disposal with it on. On top of that, there is supposed to be more snow today. I really don't want to drive in that, and I may not be able to stay awake all that late anyway. So I will probably not go. Which is sad, since it has been several weeks.

Winter sucks.

Crazy for Zhu Zhu Pets

2010-01-05T17:43:00.007-05:00

My wife has gone insane. She's totally lost it. She just has to have these silly little hamster zhu zhu pets - and the little house things they run in. She says she is getting them for the kids - and it isn't like she is playing with them. But really, neither of our kids was asking for these things. Neither of them knew about them. My son is too little to be aware of such things - he'll be two next month, and my daughter actually sees very few commercials. We tend to watch DVDs or DVR'd stuff, so commercials are, thankfully, a rare occurance in our house.

My wife heard of them from who knows where, and decided that since these are the "hot" toy this year, she had to get them for the kids. I think it is silly, and a waste of time and money. She's been calling all over the state to Walmarts to find one that has stuff in stock. She drove all the way to Ionia one day just to get some item, and now today, she's driving to St. Johns to get something else. Thankfully the little house things aren't that expensive, but still, the cost in time and gas is non-trivial. I suggested she just wait til they are no longer "hot" and then order them online, but she can't wait. It is even more silly when you consider that the kids have already gotten all of their presents for the holidays and now, just a week later, she's buying more for them. She was deprived in childhood, I think, and is making up for it now.

In any case, I just don't see these toys lasting. Sure, right now, the kids are playing with them - and fighting over them - but it is the sort of toy I see sitting unused in a box within a month or two. I remember the fad toys of the past, and I don't recall seeing a single one of them still being sold much or in use. Fads generally are fads because they have no staying power.

I look at the toys I liked and that are played with over and over even now by my kids, and I know these Zhu Zhu things won't be amongst them. The most popular and versatile toys I have are my old legos. Now those are good fun forever. You can make new toys out of them. You can combine sets. The lego blocks I got decades ago my daughter plays with now and has had fun playing with them for several years now. She never gets tired of them. That's the kind of toy I like to get.

Oh well. I hope this last set my wife is getting will get it out of her system. It is supposed to be a central hub you can use to connect several other Zhu Zhu house things together. Now once everything is connected, she shouldn't have any more good excuses to go looking for more. One can only hope.

Plagerism and the Law

2010-01-04T11:36:00.002-05:00

In school you get constantly reminded of the dire, nay evil, violation that is plagerism. And there is good reason for that - you need to be evaluated for your own work, not for how well you select the work of others.

That this continues into law school is particularly funny to me now that I am a lawyer. The reason for this is that once you are actually practicing law (and really doing any sort of legal research), plagerism is not only allowed, it is heavily encouraged, and in fact, the practice of law would grind to a halt without it.

Whenever you have a brief to write or a research memo to write, or whatever else you need to write, the normal practice is to first find out if someone has written on the same or similar topic in the office and, if so, copy as much of that as you can. No attribution is made to the original author of the material. You appropriate it, often alter it as little as possible (to save time), verify the law is still good, then you sign your name to it and send it out. To the world, it is your document, with only you as the author, but of course the reality is that you might have only written a small portion of it.

This makes a great deal of sense - why reinvent the wheel if you don't need to. Not every issue will have something you can cut and paste from - you do still have to do your own original research, and unless you are working on something from the same case, you will have to make a lot of changes after you cut and paste. So original writing ability is still important - but what is probably equally important from a practical point of view is the ability to quickly find old material that you can use to cut and paste from. Even if you have to alter it greatly, it gives you a starting point and saves a ton of time.

Thus, you need to learn to write on your own, and that's why plagerism is so heavily frowned upon in academia, but in the real world, plagerism is a way of life, and in a good way. I just find that highly amusing. Maybe there should be room in school for you be be evaluated for not only your original work, but how well you steal the work of others - after all, that will be a needed skill when you graduate!

Not Paying Attention to Politics

2010-01-03T14:53:00.004-05:00

I must admit, I have not paid much attention to politics lately. Aside from pointless arguments with die-hard wingnuts on an old bulletin board, I've really not done much with the latest political squabbles, and even on the board, it is sporadic responses on healthcare.

Partly it is because I'm too busy to spend much time with it, but partly it is because it is just depressing. The Republicans are worthless - they are blocking everything in a cynical ploy to get back power. That's all they care about. The Democratic party is worthless because they let the Republicans set the terms of the debate and then often fail even to respond to the bullshit put out by the GOP. Andrew Sullivan thinks Obama does this as part of some rope-a-dope strategy to let the GOP hang itself on its bullshit, but I don't know - it looks more to me like that usual Democratic do-nothingness.

It is thus hard to get all that enthusiastic about politics. I can't let the GOP win, because that is destruction for us all, but when the Democrats win, it is mostly blah and you get what the GOP wanted anyway, only slightly less crazy and more competent. That isn't much of a motivator.

I do care about things - like healthcare. And torture. But nothing will get done. No one will be prosecuted for torture, that is clear. And for healthcare, we'll get some watered down bill that lines the pockets of insurance companies but doesn't really improve things all that much. It sickens me that it will make insurance mandatory but provide no public option. That is the worse of two worlds. Ugh.

With news like this, no wonder I don't feel much like paying attention. No one cares what I think - I have no representation. I want a public option. So do most other people. Too bad that will never happen.

Darth Vader Opens the New York Stock Exchange

2010-01-02T11:23:00.002-05:00

Ok, this is awesome: Darth Vader Opens the New York Stock Exchange. (The post also mentions that he is stepping down from his post as CEO of Microsoft...)

Nanny Tax Time

2010-01-02T08:34:00.002-05:00

Tax time is upon us - well, at least me - I like to start working on income tax stuff as soon as the year starts, because I want to know as early as possible how much I'll be getting back (or perish the thought, owe). This year will be especially "fun" as I have to file all sorts of crap for the taxes involved with having a nanny, who is an "employee" of a "business."

I could do it all on paper, but I'd rather not figure it out to that level of detail, and payroll taxes are such a pain that it simply isn't practical anyway. So I got software to handle that - Quickbooks. And then now I find out that this won't handle the year-end tax stuff - W-2s - so I had to order a pack of those. The payroll stuff requires a subscription that costs 300 or more per year (but comes free with the software for the first year - maybe I'll have to upgrade it every year anyway). So on top of the taxes themselves, I have had to pay 150 for software plus another 80 for W-2 stuff. Hopefully that will be all I need to file.

It is too bad I don't have the W-2 stuff yet or I could take care of it all this holiday weekend.

Still, the software makes it relatively painless, if time consuming - you have to fill out and send in like 4 separate forms every quarter and then those four forms plus a few more for the year. Some go to State, some go to Federal. At least I don't have to do local government - I don't live in an area that has city income taxes or anything like that.

To pay the nanny taxes, I have a separate checking account set up - every two weeks (when I pay the nanny) I transfer into there the full amount (including taxes owed) and then write the check for after tax from that account to the nanny. (I do the transfer electronically/online - very convenient). That way, the account has all of the taxes needed come tax time and since the amounts were all deduced from the main checking everty two weeks, I have a nice, even accounting of the true costs of the nanny each pay period.

This year-end taxes thing will now be the last thing I have to figure out - hopefully once I've been through this process once, it will be easier (and more understandable) for subsequent years. Still, I can't wait til we don't have a nanny anymore - the paperwork and expense is a pain. Only three and a half more years or so until my son starts Kindergarten. Then we'll have to figure out before and after school, but that should be much cheaper.

New Year's Resolutions are Silly

2010-01-01T10:06:00.003-05:00

Happy New Year! Today is the first day of a new year, of a new decade (the 10's or teens or whatever they end up calling it). It is also the day where millions of people make New Year's Resolutions - things they will change about themselves for the new year. Probably most won't stick to them. So what's the point?

I've never really done any New Year's Resolutions. I figure that if there really is something about yourself you want to change or do differently, why wait until January 1st to do it - start now. There's nothing really magical about that date. And just think of the huge head start you'll have on anyone who does wait for that day. Truly, if you want to do something different, and you have the will to stick with it, you'd do it regardless of the date.

I guess there is some romantic notion of starting fresh, with a clean slate when the new year begins. I know I feel that a little. Truth be told, I don't feel much excitement about New Year's anymore. It is just another day on the calendar. It is nice that it is a holiday, so I look forward to that, but I don't celebrate and barely noticed it was past midnight last night.

Still, it is cool that the date is now officially 2010. It feels like... The Future. (And I looked for the perfect video for this - the scene from Airplane II, where Ted Stryker says: "We're no longer living in the past or the present anymore. This is The Future." Oh well - you'll just have to find it yourself).

Gaming Is Expensive

2010-01-01T09:28:00.005-05:00

Gaming is expensive. I'm not talking about the cost of the books, dice, and so forth - though that can certainly add up. I'm talking about the total costs for me in particular.

I freely admit to being a book whore - in that I would happily support Wizards of the Coast by ordering the books they put out each month. In the grand scheme of things it wasn't a tremendous amount of money, though over the years it does add up. But it wasn't like I couldn't afford it, particularly before having any rug rats around. Which brings me to the real costs of gaming.

Right now, I try and game at home Monday nights (for three hours) and then Friday nights in Chelsea (about an hour away) from about 7pm to 11pm. More often than not these days, the Friday game is cancelled because someone can't make it, so it is really more like every other week, or sometimes more like once a month. The thing is, often my wife gets home quite late from work (though not as much recently) or she'll be out of town for the week for work. Having a one year old and a four year old that require an awful lot of supervision, this means that to play I need a babysitter on Monday to watch the kids, feed them, and get them baths and given the need to leave and drive on Friday, we at least need someone here to watch the kids until my wife gets home. Even if it isn't that late, since I have to leave before 6 if I can, that means having a sitter (or the nanny stay a little late - she normally works 8 to 6 and costs an arm and a leg...)

Paying the sitters at 10 dollars an hour (or 12 for the nanny when you factor in overtime), that means at least 30 dollars on Monday nights and maybe just as much on Fridays. Now THAT is expensive. Now, if my wife gets home at a reasonable time (i.e. if she leaves work at 5) then there is no need for a sitter on Monday and there is at most a need for an extra hour on Friday, maybe less (and given that Fridays often don't happen, we often need not cover that regardless).

But this cost adds up. I swear I feel like all of my pay goes straight to the nanny and to babysitters. And really, it basically does.

There is also the cost of time, but that really isn't too bad most of the time. The advantage of Monday is that I game at home, so I don't go anywhere, and I'm really not away from my family. My daughter often likes to come downstairs where we play and talk to us, or take the figures and play with them, or just in general hang out with us. Probably my son will start to do that too when he's older. In fact, that is part of why I want at least one game run out of my house, so my kids can see me play and eventually, if they want, play themselves. Yes, I'm creating new gamers. (I can't do that with Friday's game because one of the players lives so far away that the only place we can all reasonably meet is in the middle, which is in Chelsea. Occasionally when he can't play and everyone else still decides to anyway, we'll play in Lansing, but more often than not we just cancel if someone can't make it).

Given how expensive having kids is in general, and how much we are paying for a nanny, it is making me rethink just how much gaming I can afford. My wife would certainly be happy to see less money spent that way. She does try to get home earlier, which is also nice in other ways - she can spend more time with the kids. She'd probably be happy if I stopped gaming altogether, but then she's not a gamer. Beyond that, it is my only social activity right now - we almost never get out of the house at all for any reason (again, the kids), so to give it up would be to give up my only social activity, not exactly healthy.

So the gaming will continue, though perhaps with less frequency. (That seems to happen naturally on its own, as I said above - busy professionals with families have a lot harder time finding the time to game). I still buy books, but now only from Paizo, and they don't have nearly the volume that Wizards had (and has for 4E I'm sure). I have plenty of miniatures, so I really don't buy anymore. (I do look at the new sets to see if there are any singles I might want, and the player character minis are cheap and non-random, so I'll probably keep getting them).

At least I don't have any other hobbies of significant expense. Well, ok, I also like Advanced Squad Leader, but they rarely put out much for that - the system is complete.

Stephen King's Under the Dome

2009-12-31T08:47:00.002-05:00

I am currently reading Stephen King's latest book, Under the Dome. I'm about two or three hundred pages into this 1100+ page book. Normally one would expect a book review only after completion of a book, but I feel like writing one now. Part of the reason for that is I'm really enjoying the book and when I'm really enjoying a book, deep in the midst of it, that is when the enjoyment is best. An ending, even a really good one, means the story ends. I want this one to continue.

In a way, it reminds me of his earlier book The Stand - not because there are any similarities in story - I don't think there are - but because it is a community survival situation, and I find such situations fascinating. What happens when normal society is destroyed and how do people deal with it? I must admit I didn't think the ending of The Stand was that great, though it was ok. But despite that, it is still one of my favorite books - maybe in part because it is so long, you can be immersed in the world and the characters for many hours, allowing much time to savor it all. Under the Dome seems poised to give me a similar immersion experience. I write about it now because I'm in the moment of that experience.

The basic premise of Under the Dome is simple - a small town is suddenly, and without explanation, encased in what is essentially a dome-shaped force field that cuts it completely off from the outside world. Maybe there will be an explanation later - though I'm hoping there really isn't one - some mysteries are best left unexplained - your imagination will generally trump anything a writer can come up with. There are exceptions to this - Lost, the ultimate TV mystery show, has explained much and it has done so in a very interesting, sometimes twisted way, that is enjoyable in its own right. (As an aside, Stephen King is a big fan of Lost). But back to the Dome...

Once things are cut off, you get small town life with a massive twist. You see how things start to break down, how people deal with it, and it is almost like you are watching a somewhat twisted social science experiment, one with very interesting characters.

I won't spoil anything in the book - I recommend it highly, if you like this sort of tale. I actually haven't read much of King's work - just The Stand, The Dark Tower Series (also excellent), and maybe one or two other books. I also read his book on writing called, appropriately enough, On Writing, and found it excellent. I aspire to be a writer someday - maybe I'll eventually get around to it. I suppose getting back to writing on this blog is a start. I have been away too long - I miss writing. It seems like a chore, but now that I'm back doing it, I find I have a lot to say and I've already written more posts in a day than I have in months. Practice practice practice. That's what makes for a good writer. (Amongst other things).

And so I have resumed my regular schedule - at least one post a day on a list of regular topics (see my post about my regular blogging schedule for the topics - today, for instance, is entertainment, so I'm writing about a book). Beyond that, I'll write on other topics that suit my fancy, whenever I feel like it.

I love Paizo's Pathfinder Rules

2009-12-30T17:38:00.003-05:00

Several months ago, at Gen Con, Paizo came out with it's Pathfinder Core Rulebook. Put simply, this is like 3.75 Edition of Dungeons and Dragons. They did a rules overhaul that still keeps the heart and soul of what 3.5E is, and is very easily compatible with 3.5E.

I have now had the chance to read the rules (including some sections several times) and I am in the process of creating my very first Pathfinder character for my very first Pathfinder game.

One of the players in the Monday evening game I run out of my house will be running a new Pathfinder campaign. He will be apparently doing some sort of homebrew - the details will be forthcoming. It will be the first time I've not run on Mondays, which will be a nice break. I don't generally run on the Friday game I play out of town (about an hour away).

We will probably do a 25 point buy, which I think is about equivalent to 32 point for 3.5E. With it you can get some decent stats, but nothing ridiculous, though they call it epic or heroic, I really don't see how it is much fun to play with totally average stats. (But that is a subject for another post).

Each of the base classes in Pathfinder have gotten a little boost - nothing much - but enough to give a little something at every level, and enough so that there is plenty of variation possible even staying just with one base class up to level 20. Of course, 3.5E had that too, in the sense that it was very viable to just stick to one class, but there were many prestige classes that allowed you to do just about any character concept better. There is less need for that in Pathfinder, which is a good thing.

I like some of the little tweaks - the Fighter stands out to me. Fighters get better with armor, so they can have higher dex bonuses even with the heavier armor as they level. They also get save bonuses versus fear - that has always been a problem with fighters. They don't have good Will Saves generally, and so where there are fear effects, the tough front-line fighters all run away, leaving the weakling wizards behind. That really doesn't make much sense - fighters need to be able to control fear to be on the front lines, so save bonuses for fear was a really nice touch.

The variants for wizards and sorcerers are also nice, with bloodlines giving a speciality for sorcerers and with specialty wizards getting new goodies as well. But I don't really want to get into all of the details on that. Suffice it to say, there is rich new content to provide all sorts of interesting variations on old themes (and entirely new themes as well) and I really love the rules.

It feels like D&D is alive again - 4th Edition for a while felt like the game was dead, in the sense that there would be nothing new on the horizon for my game. But now there is Pathfinder and Paizo and the game lives. I am very much looking forward to the other Pathfinder material that is in the pipeline. I will write more about how it plays once I've gotten into the new game. (The new game will alternate at appropriate stopping points with the 3.5E "Rise of the Runelords" game that I'm running - that one is into volume 5 now, so they are approaching the end!)

Thank you Paizo!

Non-use of Given Names

2009-12-30T17:29:00.003-05:00

I have a pet peeve about parents who name kids one thing and then never actually use the name. It is one thing for someone later in life to aquire a certain nickname that is used some of the time. That is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the parents who give a kid a first name and a middle name and then never use the first name or the middle name. Almost as bad are those parents who give a first and middle name and then use the middle name only from birth.

Why the hell bother giving a kid a name you never have any intention of using? If you are going to call a kid "Mack" from birth, write that on his birth certificate so everyone can see what his name is! If you are going to use a kid's middle name from birth as if it were a first name, why the hell don't you just make it the kid's first name to begin with?

And while I'm ranting about names, I also want to rant about people who recycle names in families, naming kids after grandparents, or even parents, so you get lots of juniors or just get the same names repeated over and over and over. Every child deserves his or her OWN name, not some recycled name. That is just so... boring - and also confusing when you look at a family tree.

So please - pick an original name for your child - but hopefully not something that makes the kid sound like a freak - and when you choose the name - use it! Thus ends my rant for this evening.

Russia to Set up Asteroid Defense Mission

2009-12-30T12:30:00.004-05:00

I just read that Russia is developing a spacecraft to deflect the Apophis asteroid from a possible collision with Earth in the coming decades. (Fans of Stargate SG:1 might also recognize the alternate threat that a different Apophis may represent...)

I think this is cool, though it is also sad that it took backwards Russia to first start doing something about this threat. The chances of the asteroid hitting may be only 1 in 30,000 or even less, but even a 1 in 30,000 chance to have life wiped out on Earth (at least our life) seems rather too high to me. Far less likely threats seem to cause action - like fear of terrorist attacks. Like the recent failed attempt to blow up a plane in Detroit (of some interest to me since the Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit is one often used by my family) - this attack has caused all sorts of overreactions, as is typical. There are tens of thousands of flights every day, and one happens on one day out of the whole year and people go crazy.

The additional security measures announced were enough to make me vow never to fly again.

But back to the Asteroid. This is a real threat, something that can wipe out life on Earth - maybe not every cell, but certainly all of us. If not this asteroid, than some other, perhaps one we have not yet detected. Despite this, we are doing nothing - we don't even have a comprehensive program to map all of the NEA (Near Earth Asteroids). It would cost a pittance, but Congress apparently has other priorities - like lining the pockets of Congress and the powerful people they represent. Maybe they figure they'll all be dead and it won't matter, or maybe they are too fat with cash and short-sighted to care. You'd think they'd want to at least protect their legacies - it is hard to have one when the Earth is a burnt-out cinder. At least with the right-wing religious wackos, they have a reason not to build such a defense system - they all WANT the world to end. So either the powers that be are all right-wing religious wackos or they are just stupid. Except they aren't stupid. So I wonder what the problem is. Any suggestions anyone?

Television, Baby Einstein and Parenting

2009-12-15T19:38:00.004-05:00

If you're not a parent, you may not have heard of it - Baby Einstein. They make videos of puppets and drawing and animals and other simply visual things, all set to classical music. The idea is that it will somehow stimulate a baby's mind and make the baby into a genius, a "baby Einstein." This probably grew out of the general notion some people had that just playing classical music for a baby, starting in utero, somehow would enhance intelligence.

I'm sure some parents believe this. I'm sure some used to do so and are disappointed when it didn't work. I have several of the DVDs. I could make the disclaimer that my wife bought them, but I didn't exactly try and stop her. I did tell her that any "enhancement" was nonsense. I don't think she really thought otherwise. One thing that the videos are good for is occupying a baby, particularly when that baby is eating. They are good "baby entertainment." But I doubt they have any positive effects. I've heard it is bad for a baby to watch TV at all. But for good or ill, both of my children watch TV. I suppose I might as well be used to it. I watch TV - I'd be some kind of huge hypocrite if I stopped them from doing so.

Maybe I can steer them toward quality shows - like Battlestar Galactica, or The Wire - or other greats. I think that's probably what would disappoint me more than anything - not that they watch too much TV, but that they watch crappy TV. One could hardly fault anyone for sitting down and watching a Battlestar Galactica marathon - but a Two and a Half Men marathon? I may need therapy.

My daughter watched baby Einstein - then Little Einsteins (on Disney Channel), and on to other Disney shows. She likes them. But now, due to the wonder of on-demand TV, she can watch reruns of ancient cartoons - Tom and Jerry - a cartoon from the 1940s and 1950s. A cartoon I grew up on. I still remember so many of them. She now watches them over and over and loves them. My son loves them, too. He laughs so hard when that poor cat gets beat up by that little mouse. Which reminds me of what annoyed me about that cartoon. The poor cat never gets a break. The mouse always gets the better of him. And it isn't just about the strong being beaten by the weak - because whenever there is a dog on the show, the stronger dog also beats up the cat. So pretty much it is all about abusing poor Tom. Just once I'd like to see it end with Jerry losing and Tom in triumph. Maybe there was such a cartoon, but I don't remember it (and haven't seen it in those on demand).

My daughter is now a sophisticated TV watcher. Thankfully, one thing she hardly sees is commercials - between DVDs, and watching stuff on channels like Disney, there are few opportunities for the ad agencies to get their claws into her. It is funny that when she does see commercials, she says "I want that" to ALL of them - she said it to a car tire commercial - I had to laugh at that. She says it, but doesn't actually press the issue - I wonder if she is even serious about it. Maybe she hasn't figured out how we can get stuff for her yet. Then again, maybe growing up with sophisticated commercials will help her build immunity to them. It certainly will take a lot to impress her. At least I hope that is the case.

Talking about TV now makes me think of horror movies, and my daughter's enjoyment of those. More on that later.

Fascinating Account of Life in Ann Arbor Jail

2009-12-12T16:05:00.005-05:00

This is an ongoing account of what life was like for a man who was in the Washtenaw County Jail in Ann Arbor, Michigan. For those that don't know it, Ann Arbor is an extremely liberal town (and is where I am originally from, though I don't live there now). It got me thinking that if this is the sort of treatment you get in a liberal jail, just how horrible must it be in the facilities run by the sadistic right-wing. Then again, given what happened with the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, maybe the liberalness of the community is irrelevant.

I look forward to future chapters.

Life Goes On

2009-11-22T18:56:00.002-05:00

My life has not really changed much over the past few months - I've just had less time and energy to post here and so have given my time over to other things. Our nanny is working out - which is great. My son is approaching two years old (in three months) and he's starting his "terrible twos" - he gets into everything and can be very insistent on getting things. He's still mostly non-verbal - he points and whines. My daughter did the same up until just past two years old. Then she started talking up a storm and hasn't stopped since.

Speaking of my daughter, she's several months into 4 years old now and she occasionally listens to us, but usually not. She ended the terrible twos (which is really like the terrible almost-two-to-well-past-threes), but given her lack of listening, it isn't necessarily that much better. She at least can be reasoned with - sometimes. She knows her abcs and can read a few words, spell her name, and so forth. She's just about ready for Kindergarten, I think, except for maybe her attention span. It will be fun and scary when she starts school. I've already called the school to see what we need to do. There is a registration process and paperwork you have to do -it just seems strange to me because I don't remember ever having to do anything but show up when I went to school. But of course, that's the child's perspective - my parents would have dealt with that stuff. Approaching school from a parent's point of view will be a new thing. It will be strange, too, given that my job sometimes involves teachers - at a time when they definitely would not want to be seeing me.

So getting to my job - I've been at my current job for well over a year and I must say, despite some various issues unique to the times, I really love it and I hope to be doing it for the next few decades of my life. This is a job I would gladly do through retirement. I feel really lucky in that regard. Work is still work and I enjoy my time with my family or just doing fun things (i.e. gaming) but I enjoy my work, and that is a rare thing. I suppose that is partly why the compensation isn't what it would be in other lawyer jobs - can't have both a great job and good pay. But it is adequate.

And to gaming - I still play in two different games - one at home, one away. I have gotten the Pathfinder Core Book, and I really like it. I will probably post separately about it, if I get time. Thanksgiving may provide me an opportunity. Or maybe I'll do it tonight.

As my energy and time return, I'll post more here. I know I will - I have plenty to say. I hope someone will read it.

Prosecutorial Immunity

2009-11-04T08:59:00.003-05:00

The Supreme Court hears oral argument today on a case about whether prosecutors have absolute immunity from suit for misconduct. The misconduct in this case was criminal - the prosecutors and police actively framed two black teenagers they knew were innocent.

I suspect that the court will grant the prosecutors immunity. And I think that is bullshit. If prosecutors are so worried about getting sued for framing defendants, there is an easy solution - DON'T FRAME DEFENDANTS.

As far as I'm concerned, those police and prosecutors should be in prison for life, no parole, for what they did. As it is, I'm sure none of them will do a single day in jail and they'll probably get this immunity too. There is no justice in our system.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize - The Right Wing Will Go Apeshit

2009-10-09T08:43:00.003-04:00

I was, of course, shocked, to wake up to the news that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Like many, I was looking for the punchline - was this an April Fool's joke? But no, it is real.

My next thought was, the right-wing nutjobs are going to go apeshit over this. For that reason alone I wish this prize did not happen. The right-wing noise machine is annoying enough on a good day. Oh well, at least I'll get it filtered through Jon Stewart.

Roman Polanksi Raped a Child - Time to move on

2009-09-29T08:52:00.002-04:00

As Kate Harding points out, Roman Polanski Raped a Child. But so what? After all, we should be looking forward, not backward. Any attempt to prosecute is just making criminal what is really a political matter (political protest of silly age-of-consent laws).

Time to move on.

Outsourcing Daycare

2009-09-22T07:41:00.002-04:00

Gotta love the Onion for looking for a way to leverage the power of outsourcing for my largest expense. If only I were paying only 300 a week for child care.

Dungeons and Dragons Self-Defense

2009-09-15T12:11:00.002-04:00

Who needs a gun when you have a sword? Brutal. And with the dismemberment, the sword-wielder must have rolled a "20".

The Public Option is Dead

2009-09-12T12:32:00.002-04:00

It was clear from Obama's speech this week that the public option is dead. He is not pushing it. He is not selling it. Democrats are saying they won't even vote for a bill with it in it - I heard Senator Nelson on NPR (a Democrat) saying he would only consider voting for it as part of the bullshit "trigger" option put forward by Olympia Snowe.

So it is dead. To me, there is no reform without a public healthcare system (and the bullshit "co-ops" don't count - those are just another way for private insurance companies to get our money).

Once again, corporate interests and the Republican noise machine dominate. We are fucked. And fuck Obama for not even trying. He gave up on the public option without a fight. Democrats in Congress have also given up without a fight. Progressives yet again must just sit down and shut up and be ignored while the conservative agenda moves full speed ahead.

Revenge is Sweet

2009-09-09T21:11:00.004-04:00

My four-year-old daughter likes to take toys away from my 18 month old son. She pulls on him, pushes him down, pushes him out of the way when he's snuggling with mom or dad so she can snuggle, and so forth.

Then this past weekend, my daughter was washing her hands in the bathroom after using it, and I was standing across the room from the door when my son opened up one of my daughter's dresser drawers, grabbed a bunch of her clothes, and then ran into the bathroom. I got there just in time to grab one end of the clothes as my son dumped all of them right into the toilet.

Revenge is sweet when you're a toddler. It is somewhat bitter when you are a parent who just put those same clothes, clean, in the drawer after doing laundry. I guess she deserved it. He is a very patient, sweet little boy and she pushes him hard. We now keep the bathroom door closed all the time. Not that he can't open it, but probably he couldn't with a handful of clothes, and it gives us more time to catch him if he tries to dump anything else into the toilet. Like a phone. (He did that a week ago - into the bathtub when my daughter was in the bath). Ah, the joys of parenthood.

Nanny Saga

2009-09-01T04:49:00.003-04:00

As I posted about before, we got a nanny to watch our two children, ages 1 and 4. Well, this has turned out to be quite a drama.

The nanny started just over two weeks ago. We had made plenty of preparations. We had her come over and just spend time with us and with the kids so they would get to know her (as would we). Her first week, my mother-in-law was still here (she came for three months this summer) and so she was also here to help out and help the kids make the adjustment. The nanny repeatedly said how committed she was and she did fine with the children.

Then came the first warning sign that things would not be going so smoothly. I sent her a text message asking essentially if she was all set for her first full day - this was like on the Friday before. I did not get a response. Then later I saw there was a posting on Facebook (she has a facebook page and I had recently gotten one - she added me to it a few months ago - we were curious to know more about her given that we were going to be inviting her into our home to take care of what is most important to us - our children.) The facebook posting answered the message - apparently her phone was not working and she was getting a new one. In it, she also asked about when to start and things like that. I didn't think much of it - we had already made clear to her that the hours would be 8 to 6, repeatedly.

So then comes Monday morning. I get out of the shower and get dressed and then get my cell phone and see that there are new messages on there from like 7:22 am. It is the nanny, asking when she needs to come. Mind you, she never sent any text messages before that nor did she try to call us at our home phone number or even on my cell before then. I texted her back quickly to tell her that it was always 8 to 6, and she says she's coming. She gets here a little bit late. But not before sending a bunch of text messages about how she had asked me for the time and essentially blaming me for her being late. She continued this even after she got here, in that when I asked her about the calendar we had given her, she replied in an irritated tone that she didn't have it with her because she had to leave her apartment in a hurry.

Well, whatever. I did not really get into that with her. I did not want to make a big deal out of what could be a simple miscommunication, but it did bother me the attitude she displayed about it. I mean, if she really had doubts about when to come, she had our numbers, she could have called or sent a text message long before 7:22 am on the morning she was supposed to come. Still, I said basically nothing about it when she got here and I went off to work.

The rest of the week flew by - she seemed to be doing ok. That Friday, both I and my wife were home for at least part of the day. Apparently this caused some issues with the kids, as they were more unruly than when we were not home. We had wanted her to come that day so we could have another day when we could see how she was with the kids. I left around 4. Apparently the kids were particularly difficult after that. I didn't realize this was a problem until the next Monday, when yet another warning sign appeared.

This next Monday was the first day she would be home all day with the kids alone. As I was holding my daughter in the morning, I listened to the nanny on the phone talking to my wife before I left. She told my wife that she was very upset on Friday because of how difficult the kids were at the end and that she would just "have to see how things would go" that day. This was news to us. We had told her from the beginning that our daughter could be difficult and that she would have to be assertive with her - and she had repeatedly assured us that she had watched lots of kids and did not think there would be a problem. On the phone that morning, she told my wife that she had never seen kids act like they did. Well, they were just kids being kids - it is not like 1 year olds and (then) 3 year olds just quietly do what they are told.

Hearing this whole conversation really upset me. It sounded basically like she was contemplating quitting. We had stopped day care and we had no backup for child care on such short notice. Since we both work and don't have a lot of wiggle room on days off, that was a big issue. I was, frankly, quite mad. But I didn't say anything. I did go to work and started looking again for another nanny, a process I didn't look forward to given how long we'd already spent on it and how much time we had spent getting the current nanny ready (and money, too).

I was about ready to just find someone and tell the current nanny to go as soon as I did, but I calmed down by the end of the day. I figured I should just give it some time, let her get used to things, and maybe it would be fine. My wife called during the day to see how things were going. The nanny told her that it was much better and that maybe it helped that we weren't home. She repeatedly assured my wife she was not quitting and would be staying. She asked to be paid that week (I paid her already for her first week). She said her rent was due, and she had originally thought she would get a check for the first two weeks at the end of the month. I had done the first week first to figure out the payroll stuff and also to sync her pay (every two weeks) with my own paycheck. So I wrote her a check in advance of her second, full two-week paycheck, and gave that to her on Thursday (my wife was home Friday, so she didn't need to be here).

So then this week completes - her second week, her first week alone. She never seemed particularly thrilled to be here, but then maybe she just wasn't a morning person. She was usually a little late in the mornings, but not so late that I said anything. She certainly left on time. (But then I'm sure that's true of almost anyone with a job). Now I started to feel bad about starting to look for another nanny, mostly because now there would be people contacted who I'd now have to tell there was no position to interview for. Then came Saturday.

My wife was out shopping in the morning, when she called me. We have to find a new nanny. Apparently the nanny called her, and through tears, told her that she had to move back home because her mother had cancer. I really didn't know what to make of that. She had never mentioned anything about it before. She said she just found out and was in the hospital. She said that there would be surgery the next Friday. Honestly, my first reaction was that I did not believe her. Given what she said Monday, and her asking to be paid that week, it seemed a little too big a coincidence. She told my wife she wasn't sure she could even be here the next week (this week now). So I spent a sleepless Saturday night worrying just what we'd do for the next week for child care. I was thankful I had at least started the process of looking for another nanny, but we probably wouldn't even meet or interview anyone until the following weekend.

This was particularly annoying because Sunday was my daughter's birthday - her fourth. And so instead of looking forward to that, I was up half the night, unable to sleep. Fortunately, the birthday itself went well - my daughter had a blast, my parents came up, two of her four regular babysitters came over, and it was fun for everyone.

Meanwhile, we heard nothing from our nanny - she did not answer her phone or texts. Finally, she send messages that were somewhat strange - saying she could come this week but that she'd be driving back and forth and could she be paid on Monday - that I couldn't quite figure out. Oh, then she said she was turning her phone off again. Well, given what had happened, I did not want to count on that for the week. We had already made arrangements for either my mother to come that week or for a babysitter who had another week before school started to come. That fell through, but then as luck would have it, one of the babysitters who came had a friend who lived nearby and who was available. She had worked in day care with her and had known her since elementary school. We liked that - while we did not know her, we really like this babysitter and knew her well (2 years now) and so at least felt like we'd not have a complete stranger over.

So our babysitter went and got her friend and she spent four or five hours here Sunday with the kids, getting to know us and our home, and we made arrangements for her to watch our kids this week. We also moved ahead with our plans to interview people this week.

Finally, later that night, our nanny called and my wife talked to her. She told her that we would not need her this week. My wife said that she did not seem thrilled when she found that out. For me, I was not at all sympathetic. I felt like we were being left in the lurch - and given that she gave no warning and at first said she wasn't sure she could even be here this week, I did not think she had cause to complain that we had already made other arrangements.

I was still suspicious. Maybe her mother was sick, but even so, she could just be using it as an excuse. She said she was moving out of Lansing that Friday.

Then another warning sign - that night, she removed me from her facebook page. What had struck me as odd before that was that there was apparently no indication that her mother was sick or that she was even moving on her page - and she had been updating it. Now, she did not put all that much in the way of personal details on there, but she would say when she was moving or going out of town or whatever on there. But there was nothing. And now I could not see what there was. That set off big alarm bells in my head - what was she hiding? I suppose she could just have been mad we weren't having her here this week, but really, how could she expect otherwise when she's leaving for good this week one way or the other?

So the nanny came over one last time last night to give back the key we gave her and for me to give her the last of the money owed her and her last pay stub. My wife talked with her a while. The nanny told her about her mother and also that her step-father and brother got in a car accident that same weekend on the way to the hospital. No one hurt, but the car was wrecked. Ok - whatever. I did not comment. But then my wife asked her about facebook. The nanny said that she had a stalker who somehow was stalking her in Lansing on facebook. She did not explain how, given that her address or any information like that was not on her page. She said her mother made her delete her facebook page. Or maybe later she said just that she was "not updating it" - but I heard her say delete. Of course, I later checked and it was still there, with like 541 friends still on it (I couldn't see the page itself). Which means that she did not delete the page, she just removed my name from it. She had spun quite a tale of this stalker, including him following her home along dirt roads and such. She claimed he was arrested and that he was stalking four different women. I didn't ask for details.

Since she did not delete her page, and in fact, had simply removed me from it, I later knew for sure she was lying. And if she was lying about that, I wondered what else she was lying about. I wondered what she was hiding - did she just find another job and delete me so I wouldn't see she was still in Lansing? Really, in the end, it does not matter. I admit I'm curious what the truth actually is and I wonder if there is any way I can find out. It worries me that someone willing to lie this blatently, to our face, was watching our kids. I think she was actually fine with the kids when she was here, but I think she has maturity issues. She seemed eager to blame others for her own shortcomings - at least that was my impression.

I don't know what we'll do going forward. Maybe our sitter's friend will work out. Maybe we'll find someone else. I'm worried about that, but less worried now that we have at least someone for now. Obviously I'm still worried enough I'm up at 5:30 in the morning writing about it.

Damn, having kids is hard.

Some things just defy parody

2009-08-26T22:21:00.005-04:00

I still have difficulty believing that this site is actually for real.

I mean, a site for "young men who have dedicated themselves to helping each other overcome pornography and/or masturbation" in a "'Knights of the Round Table' environment." After reading that, it took me several minutes before I could stop laughing long enough to read any further. I don't even need to say what immediately came to mind that made me laugh so hard - all together now: _ _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ _ _. Unreal!

What an exhausting month - Nanny starts soon - Musings on my children

2009-08-15T07:40:00.005-04:00

This past month has been a long one. I think I've been the busiest I've ever been at work for the past few weeks. This is good in that it is never boring, though I do worry about things falling through the cracks. I did a trial (admin) this past week - that was just a day, but it wa a long day and it required plenty of prep. And that was just one small part of the week. I am getting the hang of that, though. I've now handled five hearings like that on my own, as well as at least that many with someone else, and I am starting to have fun with it.

Next monday, in two days, our nanny starts. My wife is nervous about that, but I think it will be fine. It is just something new. It is very expensive, but then so was day care (this is just more expensive). The paperwork, the taxes, payroll stuff, is annoying. I still haven't gotten it all set up - the last step, doing an actual payroll, I can't just try out before I have something real to run, so I am going to have to figure out the last steps with the first paycheck. I'm sure it will be fine - it isn't rocket science, but I want to get it right.

My daughter turns 4 this month, which is a big milestone. She's grown so much and can do so much now. She can do her alphabet. She can spell her name (and other things). She can type on the computer, use a mouse, even play Diablo II, though for her, that consists mostly of buying and drinking potions and running around town summoning birds to chase her around (with her druid). She says she's too afraid to go out where the monsters are, but she likes when I'm in the game with her and hang around town with her. It amazes me just how much of the functionality she figured out on her own. I never showed her how to do half of the stuff she does in the game - I didn't even know her druid could summon birds - but she figured it out. I guess she isn't a baby anymore.

My son is a year and a half this month. He's also grown so much. Grandma has been here helping us out since the end of May, but she leaves in a week (and thus the nanny starts). He's the reason we have a nanny. We got a final round of checks with a specalist and determined that he is not allergic to anything and that his health problems were just caused by serial sickness at day care, something that some kids get and just can't handle well. So he can't go back to day care. And if he's home, financially, we have to have our daughter home, too. I can't say that upsets me, though. My daughter loves her friends in day care, but she'll start kindergarten in a year and have friends there, and I just can't stomach her hearing any more Jesus brainwashing at her day care. I figured when she was really little, none of it would have stuck, but when she started coming home talking about certain stuff (and I even heard her say a stupid prayer over a meal once), that was enough for me. So for my son's physical health and both of my children's mental health, I'm glad to have them at home. It will also be much more convenient - it was quite a major operation to get them both up, dressed, and packed into the car, and into day care each morning, and then it was another major operation to get them both home.

Once grandma leaves, it will fall to me most evenings to get them both fed and bathed and into bed. (Right now, grandma pretty much has my son attached at the hip, which means I usually only have to take care of my daughter's baths, etc in the evenings). I admit I've been taking good advantage of that in that I play with my daughter a lot in the evenings right now. I do feel sometimes like I need to spend more time with my son, but he is usually in bed much earlier for the night, between 7 and 8 ideally. And my daughter can be so demanding of attention. It will be ... interesting ... to deal with them together without grandma. My daughter can be a bit rough with him. But they can also play well together when she isn't, well, acting her age.

I also find I get up early in the morning to just have a little time to myself.

I am both excited and worried about my daughter starting school next year. She seems so little still, and yet she's grown so much. She will have another year on her before then, which I'm sure will make a big difference. I already called the school district to see what I needed to do. There are a bunch of forms you need to fill out - I never realized there was all this preparation. I guess all of it was done for me long before I was aware of such things. I just thought you showed up at school and they knew you were coming. But of course, they could only do that if someone told them. So I was told that I can call again next February for information about a parent orientation. I want to go check out the elementary school, but I guess I can wait until then. I hope my daughter will do well in school. I was a total nerd, but at least I learned well.

I hope she gets good friends. She is probably going to be popular, as those things are measured, in that she is outgoing, she likes talking to everyone, and she is a very pretty girl. I worry, though, if that is going to be a good thing being popular. Perhaps that is because I was the polar opposite when I was in school. I guess as a parent you can always find new things to worry about.

I know I haven't been writing as much lately - I actually have plenty of things to say, I just have been lazy and taking advantage of being able to do other things, as I know I only have a week left to do so. Ironically, I think having less time to play around like that will make me spend more of it writing.

Now to enjoy the quiet time.

Obama is a Pussy

2009-08-06T09:24:00.004-04:00

Some may have a problem with the subject line. To tell the truth, it is not something I would say--I prefer to call Democrats spineless. But those words were what greeted me when I answered the phone this morning. My wife is not shy about expressing her opinion in a rather frank (and some would say un-PC) manner. Her full quote was "We're screwed--Obama is a pussy." The full context is that he won't fight the GOP hard and dirty and get done what needs to get done, particularly with healthcare, but really, with everything else.

It is hard to argue with her now. I have been gravely disappointed at the things Obama has done - either not fighting hard enough or just adopting wholesale Bush-era illegal policies. And who can forget his "look forward, not back" - a rather novel way to avoid prosecuting ANY crime. So now I'm just sad about it all. And playing Diablo II.

Familial Outlier?

2009-07-25T10:41:00.004-04:00

Almost everyone in my family is fat. Except my immediate family. Which I find somehow strange, but probably shouldn't. Let me explain.

They weren't always fat. Growing up, my mother and her three sisters were thin. My mother's youngest sister then wasn't thin (as I remember - I can't claimed to have looked back at all of her old pictures), but she wasn't fat - and then the other three sisters were still very thin.

My cousins were thin. All of them. My sister is the oldest cousin (as my mother is the oldest sister). Then there are two other cousins older than me, then there is me and one other cousin-we are the same age-then there are four cousins younger than me. My parents (and sister and nieces) came to visit last weekend. My mother brought with her some pictures. She had just visited my aunt in the hospital and had seen much of the family there too. (My aunt, sadly, has cancer, and the prognosis ranges from having a few weeks or maybe months, but certainly she will not have that much longer to live). I had not seen most of my relatives in many years. I can't recall when I saw most of them in person last. But what was immediately apparent was that they were all now fat. Very fat. All of my aunts. All of my cousins (at least the four in the pictures). Extremely so. And I wonder why that is. I mean, yes, I know there is genetics and that some people just are that way. But none of them were before - even well into adulthood. My dad made some comment about it and about lifestyle when my mother pulled the pictures out. I didn't say anything. Maybe it is genetics and lifestyle - after all, all of them are related.

But I'm related to them, too. And I'm not fat. I'm not rail thin, either. And I don't exercise and I eat like crap most of the time, though admittedly I also don't eat a lot and don't tend to eat junk food. I just don't like most of it. It makes me feel sick to eat chips or candy, generally. My mother also is still thin. As is my sister. But then my sister is very active - a real athlete - she just did a Tae Kwon Do tournament and won like seven gold medals (note to anyone who wants to be mean to me: my sister will beat you up). My mother also likes to get out and walk, but I don't know that any of my other relatives are any different (though none of them are anywhere near the athlete that my sister is - as far as I know).

So maybe it is genetics - after all, the only thin people in the "relative pool" are all closely related - my mother, my sister, and me. (My dad isn't exactly thin, but he isn't fat and he's not genetically related to everyone else I'm talking about here except for me and my sister). Now, there is another part of the equation - my uncles. But then I'm not sure about them. I think two of the three of them were thin - I know one still is. And the third, I just don't know, but I don't recall him being fat - he was in the military.

Anyway, this just strikes me as odd. I know people change as they get older, but for so many people to have so radical a change - I mean, it looks like my relatives have doubled or even tripled their weights since adulthood, and I don't think that is common. I wonder why it happened in a clinical sort of curiosity. I wonder if it is more common than I think it is.

Wasting time with Diablo II

2009-07-21T15:28:00.003-04:00

I've been wasting time the past few days with a very old computer game, Diablo II. I played it in its heyday, but then haven't for years. Then they announced Diablo III was coming, and I thought, what the heck, I already have II, why not try it again. I even have my daughter playing it, sort of - she likes to just click the mouse and occasionally, she'll click in the right place to kill some monsters. She loves it.

At first, it was a shock to play it again - it looks so primitive after playing so many newer games, like Fallout 3. But once I got into it, I forgot that and just really enjoy the gameplay.

There are probably more productive things I could do with my time, but what the hell - I'm having fun and it is as good as free. With two computers, I can play while my daughter also plays (in the same game, no less, online!) and now I'm trying to get my sister to play, too. She's down in Florida and has never tried it, but she likes games.

All of this just goes to show that even without flashy graphics, you can have a deeply absorbing game that holds up even almost a decade later. Sort of like X-Com UFO Defense. Another classic.

Health Insurance Companies are EVIL

2009-07-14T08:32:00.004-04:00

Reading this I can only come to one conclusion: Health Insurance Companies are evil. You are penalized with denial of insurance for the rest of your life for the selfless act of donating a kidney. What assholes. We need public health insurance. NOW.

Plea Bargain of an Innocent

2009-07-13T12:15:00.003-04:00

Reading this article at Simple Justice, I got thinking about something that really bothers me.

Often, given the risks of trial and the way the deck is stacked against criminal defendants (beyond a reasonable doubt my ass...) an innocent person will plead guilty to a lesser offense simply to get a shorter sentence (and to end the uncertainty). As part of any guilty plea, generally the defendant is required to admit to doing the conduct, under oath, in court.

I was wondering how one can reconcile this with laws against perjury and against facilitiation of perjury (for a lawyer). If you know your client is innocent, but think he or she will still be convicted, or at least might be, how can you let them allocute to guilt under oath? How can the innocent person, in good consicence, commit perjury just for the sake of the plea?

If I were that innocent person, I would honestly tell the court that I was innocent, but that I was pleading guilty to a lesser charge because of the risks of not doing so being too great. If the court would not allow me to do that and plead guilty, then I would take that up to appeal and argue that it is a violation of due process to only allow plea bargains for reduced charges to guilty people while denying them to innocent people. Maybe I am just crazy, but it seems crazy to me that innocent people should get a worse outcome than guilty people under our system (of course, one could argue that innocent people will always get a worse outcome since they have so much taken away by the system, and all when they did nothing wrong).

Thank you, Larry

2009-07-12T22:20:00.003-04:00

Larry (aka Barefoot Bum) has closed his blog for good. Thankfully, he left his archives up, so we can all enjoy reading them still. I just wanted to thank him for the posts he has put up over the years, and even for his occasional odd comment here. I have always enjoyed his writing. Even if it is all useless bullshit (his words - I'm certainly not saying it was), it was at least enjoyable useless bullshit.

I also want to thank Larry for offering an explanation today. I was quite curious why he closed his blog. Upon reading it, I find that he decision to stop his blog is quite reasonable and makes perfect sense. I fear he may be right, that humanity is doomed to be done in by its own collective indifference to making things truly better. Yet I cannot quite be that cynical yet. Maybe I just am naive, but I still have hope - after all, many institutional things have gotten better with time, even if it did take far too many centuries for them to happen. Many of the people I admire would have been summarily executed for their views in a rather horrible fashion by local authorities, or by the local church (or both) just a few centuries ago. Still, I can't exactly say I'm holding my breath that things will get all that much better in my lifetime. And maybe they will even get worse. But I still have hope.

In any case, thanks again, Larry. I hope your remaining years do bring you happiness. I'm sure there are far better things you can do with your time than argue with f*ckt*rds.

Cleaning Up

2009-07-11T15:32:00.002-04:00

Today was a cleaning day for me. I cleaned my carpets with a wet carpet cleaner. This is cheaper than paying someone else to do it. I consider it somewhat of a waste of time since the carpet does not stay clean long with a one year old and a three year old loose. I guess you can't let things get too bad, but what will stains hurt?

It just kind of sucks to do all this work to clean the carpet only to see it covered with spills and stains within a few weeks. But oh well. I guess I'll just enjoy the clean carpet for however long it lasts.

I also did some other cleaning today. I cleaned up this blog. Specifically, I reduced the number of post labels. When I first started blogging, I would add a ton of labels to each post, figuring that would help someone searching on various key words. I've since figured out that you can search on post content anyway, so you don't need labels for that purpose. It is actually better to have fewer labels. I noticed this most starkly when I added the label list on the lefthand side of the page and saw just how many useless, used-once labels there were. Today, I went through and cleaned them up, getting rid of every label I think I'd never use again. Maybe sometime I'll go through and consolidate even more, but for now, I think it is fairly cleaned up. And this clean up won't be covered with toddler-made stains in a few weeks.

An Interesting Dungeons and Dragons Blog (4E)

2009-07-08T22:13:00.002-04:00

I just stumbled across this blog, which is an interesting read. It is about 4E Dungeons and Dragons, which I don't (and won't) play (as I've mentioned before), but it is still fun to read, regardless. So I thought I'd share. Particularly interesting are the series of articles analyzing 4E modules (and the rules) bit by bit.

Your Social Security Number is Not Safe

2009-07-07T09:39:00.003-04:00

Here's yet another reason your SSN is not safe: using statistical analysis and math, it is apparently pretty easy to guess if someone knows your date of birth and your place of birth.

It is sad that it is illegal to use your SSN for any sort of identification purposes, yet, despite that, it is basically universally used for it anyway.

Truly, what we need is an ID system based on biometric data. Though I wonder how that would work for online transactions, where it would be easy enough to send fake parameters instead of your own.

I already knew there were reasons not to share things like your birthday and even place of birth - which is why I generally counsel not to use your real birthday for things online unless you are legally required to. I certainly never do. So here's one more reason not to.

Seeing what Sticks

2009-07-06T09:16:00.004-04:00

I don't know how many times I heard a professor say this in law school, nor how many times I've heard it elsewhere when talking about what legal arguments to raise. The story, as it usually goes, is this. A lawyer talks about some case they had where they raised what he or she thought was the two or three best legal arguments, then she throws in two or more arguments that really seem to have no chance, "just because" and then the judge rules for her based on one of the arguments that was a throw away. The moral the lawyer learns from this is "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" because "you never know what obscure legal argument the court may adopt."

I have my doubts about this strategy. It seems more like ass covering than actual good lawyering to me. If some obscure argument wins while the "strong" arguments don't, my first thought is that the lawyer really did not have a clue what the best arguments were. Sure, maybe the judge is just an idiot, which also happens, but then, if the judge is an idiot who won't follow the law, there isn't too much you can do about that but appeal to an appellate tribunal that will follow the law (as the intermediate appellate courts generally do - at least, much better than a circuit court).

The best approach is to only raise those issues you are strong on, and leave out the weak ones. They just waste the court's time (and yours), they reduce your credibility with the court, and they may annoy the court if they are so weak as to be almost frivolous to raise. I know they would annoy me if I were a judge (and I have been in the position where I had to think like one).

Obviously, it is important to really know which issues are strongest (and which are bullshit) - and if you are insecure about that, you are probably not qualified to represent your client and ought to either refer the client to someone else or seek a mentor to help you out (and of course, none of that gets charged to the client - the client pays for legal services, not your education).

But "throwing everything at the wall" and hoping something sticks is certainly not good lawyering. I think it tends to resemble what you get when a person, not a lawyer, tries to represent themself. They often just cite one irrelevant legal issue after another, and sometimes, perhaps by chance, one of them actually has merit. That is to be expected from a non-lawyer. I don't think it is acceptable from an actual member of the bar. But hey, I've only been a lawyer a short while, so what do I know?

More fun with finding a Nanny

2009-07-05T06:00:00.001-04:00

As I mentioned last week, I am currently in the process of trying to find a nanny. Well, now I'm more in the process of trying to figure out all of the legal hoops I have to jump through to set up having an employee. It is not something I've ever done before, so I am starting from scratch.

At first, I was a bit annoyed at all of the various forms and things you have to keep track of and take care of. It seemed awfully burdensome to have to do all of this crap just so I can write a check to someone else every two weeks. I can understand better why some small employers get all flustered and upset at government and want to vote Republican (as if that would make any difference). But really, this stuff protects all workers, including me - and that I appreciate very much, since I am also someone else's employee, as is my wife.

So while it is terribly annoying and will cost us quite a bit of extra money, I know why we need it - too many employers are bastards and even with these protections, far too many workers get screwed over. Still, it is hard for us to afford. It costs hundreds of dollars upfront to get software and services set up for doing payroll. That will pay off in the end because it will automate things. I shudder to think of trying to calculate that stuff by hand each paycheck. And this does impact the nanny too, in that, we will have less money to pay her.

There are additional taxes of about 11-12 % on top of what we'll pay to the nanny in salary (and of course, she'll have money taken out on her end as well). This is to pay for SS and Medicare deductions and State and Federal Unemployment Insurance. Thankfully, we don't have to buy Workers Compensation Insurance. I have no idea how much that would cost (but I assume it isn't cheap) - it is only required if you have more than three employees, and we'll only have one.

Some things have been pretty easy. Getting a Federal Employee ID was easy. You can get that online and it is basically instant. You can then use that for setting up everything else. Michigan requires filing a new business form for tax purposes. 518, I think it is. I filled that out and will send it in Monday. You have to fill out I-9 forms (to prove the employee is allowed to work) and W-4 and MI-W4 for withholding. I remember filling these out for every job I ever had, so I guess I should not be surprised.

I went out and got binders to put all of the various supplements on Federal and State employment taxes. I got another binder to put all of the information for the nanny, including, eventually, copies of each pay stub. I'm going to have to file quarterly taxes for her, state and federal, in addition to an annual return. All in all, there is a whole lot of work on my end for this. I've already spent many hours looking this stuff up and getting stuff ready. I hope it will be relatively automated and easy once things are set up, but no matter what, I will be spending extra time on this on an ongoing basis.

I suppose on the upside, if I ever do form my own small business (like if I hang a shingle) I'll already have some experience relevant to that. Still, I'd think a real business would hire someone to handle HR matters who was an expert at it and so I really wouldn't need to know about that stuff anyway. Of course, hanging a shingle, I'd be a rather small business and the less overhead the better. Not that I'm planning on doing this any time soon, if ever. I like my job. But it is an interesting thought.

My big worry now is that I'm going to miss something important. I'm pretty sure I have all of the basics covered. I'm a little worried about getting the particulars right for the taxes, but I am fairly confident the tax software will handle it - that's what it is for, and it keeps updated as the law or rates change over time.

I never would have thought I'd be doing something like this when I decided to take the plunge and reproduce. Ah, the joys of parenthood.

Hello, Senator Franken

2009-07-04T20:26:00.003-04:00

It is about frickin' time that Franken got seated in the Senate. The courtroom crap was bullshit - it really was nothing more than a delaying action by Republicans.

But that hasn't stopped the true kool-aid drinkers from declaring (with the help of the Wall Street Journal) that Franken "stole" the election. Uh, no. They conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of judges who considered the election were GOP, and on top of that, the judicial determinations were unanimous. It wasn't like Bush v Gore, where there was a rather blatent attempt to stop the counting and where the verdict was split along party lines on the court. Not that that necessarily means anything legally, but it certainly could be evidence of politics over law. No such thing happened in Minnesota. Instead, we see the national GOP increasingly detached from reality. I was worried about 2010 - I am less worried now as I watch the GOP continue to self-destruct.

The only question is, will they self-destruct faster and more efficiently than the Democrats, who usually are pretty good at caving in and getting nothing done.

In any case, well done, Senator Franken. This makes me wish I had talked to him when I had the opportunity. I was sitting in Minnesota's main airport for a layover and happened to spy Al Franken sitting there with me, waiting for a different flight. He sat right across from me for about an hour. He was quietly reading a paper most of the time. He didn't talk to anyone. This was before he officially was in the Senate race, but it was obvious he would be in it. I wanted to say hello and that I'd vote for him if I had lived in MN, but I never did. I figured he did not want to be bothered, and in any case, I'm generally introverted, so I don't seek out conversation with strangers at airports, generally.

Fox's 24 - My review of Season 7

2009-07-02T21:48:00.002-04:00

I just finished watching this season's 24 on Fox. All things considered, I enjoyed this season. I haven't gotten to see all previous seasons. I saw 1 and 2, and I saw a few other seasons in there somewhere, though I'm not sure which they were. Some of them were really good. I'd rate this last one as good, too.

Before I get into what I liked, I just want to make perfectly clear. 24 is right-wing torture porn. The deranged right seems to think Jack Bauer is a real person and that his torture techniques really save lives. I want to ask those same people if they think "Alf" is a real "person." After all, Alf is also on TV.

This season, they did something interesting with that. They did an exploration of the whole notion of ends justifying the means. And they did it in a way that was dramatically consistent. Because Jack doesn't change his ways. Jack is Jack. It would be totally out of character for him NOT to be a right-wing torture porn poster boy. So the way they explore the notion is through other characters.

NOTE: Spoilers ahead.

The first character they explore this with is an FBI agent who in a way becomes Jack's protogee. She is a straight-arrow at the start, but as she watches Jack do what he does, she gradually starts to do some of the things he does. He has to really push her to do it at first, and she feels sick about it, but she does it, and apparently sees it get results. (Of course, this is contrary to the real-world experience of torture, which generally is useless at anything but getting the tortured person to tell you what you want to hear). But she never quite crosses the line that Jack has crossed. She feels badly about it and stops... until the end. More on that in a moment.

Jack's friend Tony is back from the dead in this. He seems to be on Jack's side the whole day, until it turns out at the end, he seems to be working for the big bad guys. He goes so far as to launch a biological warfare attack in a subway that would kill thousands, all to get in with the big honcho. But in the end, Jack finds out that he has no interest in anything except killing the Honcho for his having killed Tony's wife several seasons earlier. Tony is the ultimate ends-justify-the-means character. He fully believes that it was ok to sacrifice thousands to get to this guy. He is motivated by revenge, and yet really, he is just an even more extreme version of Jack - willing to break the law and kill people to get a "greater good" - taking out the man behind so many of the bad things on earlier seasons of 24.

At the end, Jack stops Tony from killing the Honcho. He is taken into custody and you see the Honcho "lawyer up." (Despite the fact that he was caught in the middle of a shootout with the FBI, meaning he'd rot in prison for the rest of his life, the show makes it seem like he'll get off somehow). The FBI agent has one last talk with Jack. He tells her he regrets nothing, but that also he has lost a lot. He asks her to consider that. I wish I had the exact conversation, but I can't recall it now.

Then Jack goes off to die. The FBI agent takes the Honcho and is going to question him. And when it seems like he is not going to cooperate, she pulls a gun on another agent (played by Jeanine Garofoalo - quite humorous that she is in this, btw, given her political views - which the character does stay true to, in that her agent refuses to violate the law) - anyway, Jack's understudy pulls a gun and then handcuffs the other agent and goes into the room - and that's the last you see of her in the show. It is clear she's gone over the line, the same as Jack. She's sacrficing her career, everything. She's gone to the dark side. Watching it, you get the sense that the cycle is just continuing - that Jack's immorality is spreading like a rot. That what spread to Tony has now infected her. At least that is the sense I got. Maybe that is just my take on it. I'm sure the right-wing zealots who worship Jack won't see it that way. They'll try and make some distinction between her and Jack and Tony. But really, I think the writers are cleverer than that. Tony really is just what Jack is heading toward becoming. Jack, in a way, senses this, and in the end, as he is about to die from the bioweapon, he asks for a Muslim Cleric who he ran into earlier in the day take what are essentially his last words. I'm sure the right-wing nuts went crazy about that - Jack going Muslim! Not that it was particularly muslim what he did, but there is certainly symbolism in it. Jack seems to be asking forgiveness for all the bad he has done.

So while I enjoyed the show as it was going - despite all the usual plot holes and ridiculousness, in the end, what I really enjoyed most was the comparison you see between the three different characters - Jack, the FBI woman, and Tony - and how they all were different versions of the same thing. It showed that once you crossed that line that Jack and Tony had crossed, it leads down a bad road - Jack makes some errors on that road that he finally sees are wrong - jumping to conclusions too quickly about an apparent muslim extremeist. Tony is clearly in the wrong. And then you see the basically decent (to begin with) FBI agent make more and more compromises with morality and the law until she finally crosses the line, where there is no going back, and she goes totally rogue. You know that can't end well for her.

What I get from that is that ultimately, that line into illegality can never be crossed - once you do, you are no different than Tony. You are part of the problem or will ultimately get there. Maybe that's just my wishful thinking, but I saw that in the show and I really liked that.

Apparently I am Spam

2009-06-30T19:33:00.001-04:00

I just got a warning message that my blog has been flagged as a SPAM blog that will be deleted unless I verify it. What utter nonsense. While I can appreciate the need to police such things, it should be apparent to any actual human being that my blog is NOT a SPAM blog. That it was labeled as such without anyone actually verifying this first is terribly annoying.

In essence, blogspot has now spammed me - an automated program has now run and wasted my time in this verification process. And make no mistake, doing this is SPAM, no better than any other automated junk that gets done across the internet.

I do hope this gets cleared up quickly. I suppose since I am doing this for free, I ought not to complain, but it is still annoying.

UPDATE - My Blog has now apparently been confirmed as "real" - I guess it is good it took them less than a day to do so.

Health Care Should NOT Be For Profit

2009-06-30T19:04:00.002-04:00

As my blog description of me says, I am libertarian leaning. That means I have my doubts about centrally planned economies - I don't think they work. I value competition, where there truly is some. But some things simply can't be for profit - they can't really work that way. One of those things is health care and health insurance.

Health care simply can't be for profit. Health insurance, in particular, simply cannot be for profit. Because the way you make a profit, ultimatley, is by turning down health care for someone. Not just someone, but lots of people. And to me, that is immoral. No one deserves to have their health sacrificed simply because they don't have enough money.

If you have a burning building with a bunch of people inside, you don't just rescue the people from the building who have money. You rescue EVERYONE. That is the moral thing to do. What, you might say, of those people who stupidly went into the building when they knew it was on fire? Ask a fireman about that - they get rescued too. Because again, it is the moral thing to do.

It is not like people are going to want to deliberately sabotage their health just so they can get medical procedures. Generally speaking, many people, if not most, would rather not go see a doctor if they can avoid it. I sure as hell don't like to go to the doctor. I only go when I'm really sick and I don't think I'll get better on my own. Sure, there are hypocondriacs, but then, such people are probably cheap, because it doesn't cost much to have a doctor look at you and tell you nothing is wrong.

The benefit of insurance, and the reason it works, is that it is about sharing risk across a large population, such that individuals who suffer great losses don't go under, while at the same time, premiums are, on average, affordable. This stops working if insurance companies are allowed to cull from their coverage anyone who really would take a loss, leaving only people in the pool who never need benefits. The only reason to do this is to make a profit. If you don't have a profit incentive, then you might as well just get as many people on coverage as possible, because almost all of the money goes to the people insured instead of into some CEO's pocket.

The bigger the pool of people, the better. The best pool is one that has the entire population in it. Then everyone contributes and everyone benefits and is covered. Yes, this means even young, healthy people have to pay a premium (through their taxes), but then, that is something they will benefit from when they themselves are old and utilizing the premiums paid by the succeeding generations of young people.

Another reason health simply can't be for profit is because when it comes to actually choosing health care, people generally don't have a choice. If you find out you have cancer, you have no choice but to get expensive treatments. You also may not have any time to "shop around" - nor do you really have the expertise to do so. If you need a kidney removed, you only get one shot at having that done. Either they do it right or they won't, and you won't know in advance if you are getting your money's worth. You simply cannot make dispassionate market choices when your health is in immediate peril. And even if you could, it would be very hard to discern if you are truly getting the best treatment. It is not like you are ordering a steak.

So to sum up, there are three basic reasons health care simply can't be for profit.

1. Shared risk really only works where everyone is in the same risk pool and everyone benefits.

2. There are perverse incentives to play with the money in the risk pool when the goal is profit instead of simply making sure everyone is covered.

3. People really can't shop around for health care, even if they wanted to. They simply don't have the expertise and may be under great duress when the time comes to pick services.

Finally, most of the reasons cited to avoid a single-payer, public plan are bogus.

1. The notion that you won't have any choice is crap. As it is, for every private plan I've been on, I've not had much, if any, choice. So it is not like a private plan is any better. If everyone is on the public plan, there would be a vast improvement in choices as you would no longer be limited to whatever small circle of doctors is on your plan - because EVERY doctor would be on your plan.

2. The notion that you would have long wait times for service is also crap. You have to wait under private plans. Even for a simple office visit, you can wait hours past your regularly scheduled appointment time. And procedures can have you waiting weeks or months. My wife just had a suspicious result in one of her checkups. She is a bit of a hypcondriac, which makes that worse. But even though there was potentially a serious problem, she was forced to wait almost two weeks for the followup because no other appointments were available. And now she has to wait two more weeks for the results. So private health insurance sounds an awful lot like what is anecdotally complained about in nations with public health plans.

It does make sense for other types of insurance to be more on a profit model. Insurance that covers optional activities or is based upon your choices, that is ok. Like insurance that varies based on where you build your house. If you try to build in a flood plane, it makes sense that you would have to pay a lot of extra money for that. Or if you want to get a fast, dangerous car, then you pay a premium on the insurance for that care. Or if you want to get life insurance when you chose dangerous recreational activities, like sky-diving. There, the risks set the price, and you can avoid the price by avoiding the risk.

The time has come for us to have a single payer health care system that covers everyone and pools everyone together. I wouldn't outlaw private plans - if someone wants to get something over and above that, and someone else is willing to supply it, that's fine by me. I think the private insurers are all up in arms because they know that once the monopoly of crappy private plans is broken they lose their obscene profits (and in many, if not most places, it IS a monopoly - even where there is more than one plan, you are still stuck with whatever your employer provides) .

I still think many things should just be left to the free market (and I mean TRULY free market (free, but regulated), not the government-sponsored monopolies that make up much of our "capitalist" system). But health care is not one of those things.

Legal Advocacy: The Importance of Credibility

2009-06-29T06:20:00.002-04:00

It cannot be stressed enough just how important credibility is when you are a lawyer. I'm not talking about the credibility of witnesses, though that is obviously also an issue of great importance - either bolstering or attacking it, depending on the circumstances. I'm talking about the credibility of the lawyer - both with the judge and the jury (if relevant). I'd say it is most important with the judge or judges (like for an appellate panel).

If you read any (good) treatise on good legal advocacy, this is stressed heavily. But what does it mean?

A layperson may not realize that it is often one of the parties who actually writes a judge's order. You may go to a hearing to argue a motion or an oral argument in circuit court on appeal from an administrative matter and, at the close of the hearing, if you win, you will be asked to write the order that the judge will sign. Often those are basic "you win for the reasons stated in the record" kind of orders, but sometimes, it is a more complex issue. Thus, what you really want is to write your own order and submit it with your motion with the intention that the judge will sign it. And no judge is going to sign your order unless she or he finds you credible in your advocacy.

A total scorched earth approach, questioning and nitpicking every single small point does not lend itself to credibility. Then you look like you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing and opposing for the sake of opposing, and aren't willing to cede any ground, even that ground which you truly should. That makes you appear unreasonable. And if the other side doesn't do the same, then they seem reasonable in comparison. Which order do you think a judge is more likely to sign-the one written by the most or least reasonable party in the suit?

You gain credibility by conceding points where the law truly says the other party should win. You also gain credibility where you concede points that the other side should probably win, but only after a bit of a fight, because that fight wastes everyones time and energy. One thing judges do not like is to have their time wasted. You gain credibily by an unbiased presentation of the facts. Certainly where there is a factual dispute, you advocate for the position you think the evidence supports, but where there are independently verifiable facts, particularly where you are dealing with a written record, citing to it in a misleading way can only destroy your credibility once the judge reads the record and sees that it doesn't match your claims. Better for the judge to conclude that about the other party - then whenever an issue comes up, the judge will turn to YOU for the answer, because the other party simply won't be trusted to give an accurate answer (for instance, if at oral argument, the judge forgets about a particular detail in the record and wonders what happened - or even for something that is outside of the record, like what has happened since the record was taken).

If you gain a reputation for an unbiased representation of the facts, even where it may hurt your client. you gain a reputation for credibility that will serve you well.

I've thought about this in the context of online discussions, where certain ideological groups never cede a single inch or grant any validity to any of the points in contention. Sure, there are idiots who "troll" and don't really have any valid points to make, but it seems like people are shoved into that category all too quickly simply for not being a synchophant, and you get no-debate echo chambers instead of any rational discussion. I wonder if any of those bloggers would still act like that if they had real legal experience where they had to build credibility with a neutral arbiter like a judge instead of having dictatorial control over their own little fiefdom of the internet.

But back to the issue at hand. You need credibility to be an effective advocate. Credibility on the facts and on the law. You have to make sure you are accurate. You have to make sure you communicate it clearly to the judge. And you have to be reasonable. Clients may love it when you are unreasonable and take the scorched earth approach, but it will annoy the hell out of judges (well, unless you are a prosecutor - then the judge can be an extension of the prosecution. Ok, that isn't quite fair - there are lots of biases judges can have).

Credibility is something hard earned and easily and quickly lost. Mislead a judge once, leading to that judge to sign an order that is contrary to the law (or the facts) - and that judge is then reversed on appeal - that judge will remember you. And the next time, even if you are right, the judge certainly isn't going to take your word for it. And ultimately, it is your clients who will suffer.

NPR and Torture: Why I'm Never Contributing to NPR

2009-06-28T18:42:00.000-04:00

My car radio is tuned to NPR. The station also does classical music during the day, but then, during the hours I drive, it is pure NPR programming. Over the past eight years, I've found myself, quite often, screaming at the radio in frustration as torture is discussed and it is labeled with the Orwellian "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "harsh interrogation techniques." I've yelled, "No, it is TORTURE, call Torture, TORTURE!" Sadly, the radio never responds to my tirades.

Now, I see the formal explanation of why this is. NPR's Ombudsman has written a blog entry about NPR's avoidance of the word "torture" to describe torture. It is, to say the least, tortured logic. What is most telling is the admission in there that to NOT use torture is do adopt the government's position - all of this said while they explain how they cannot "take sides." Yet not using the word IS taking a side - that of the government. Unfortunatley, the side that is not taken is the truth.

This is utter bullshit. Glenn Greenwald, as linked above, takes NPR to task on this. I am very much looking forward to NPR's (likely bullshit) response. There really is only one right answer here. NPR should report the truth. It should not matter which "side" is hurt by it or which side uses the language. Objective reporting requires reporting the truth. Anything else is propeganda. Not using the word "torture" to describe torture is propeganda.

Over the years, I've heard many an NPR pledge drive. I did once contribute to NPR, though my labor, not through money, though it was 16 hours of labor, not a small investment. When it has come to money, I have not pledged, though I have always intended to - likely when I am no longer paying for child care. But no more. This Orwellian nonsense has killed any incentive I would have had to give them any of my hard-earned cash. Instead, I am going to call them on pledge weeks and tell them what I'm saying now - until they stop with the propeganda and actually accurately report torture as torture, I will NEVER give them a dime. And it isn't just on the torture issue, but all issues where they play these language games, adopting the Orwellian language, usually of the right-wing, to describe things. Real reporters report facts and don't care which side those facts hurt. NPR is nothing more than a propeganda organ for the right-wing so long as they adopt right-wing language over truth. (Same goes for any left-wing Orwellian language, though there is far less of that).

So NPR had better clean up its act, or no money from me. Somehow, I'm not expecting anything to change. Glenn is going to be either rationalized away or ignored. The rot in the MSM is too deep for anything to matter now. I expect the MSM ship is going to sink to the bottom and be replaced by something else - the inanity of the cable news is likely unfixable, given the way the MSM is structured and financed. But at least my voice is out there, for what it is worth.

Finding a Nanny versus Day Care

2009-06-28T08:53:00.007-04:00

I am currently going through the process of looking for a nanny. We had thought about getting one before, but I never really seriously considered it because of the complications involved and the increased cost. Day care is very expensive to begin with. A nanny, we figured, would cost even more, though we never knew quite how much. (Though we did figure if we had three kids in day care, a nanny would likely be cheaper).

The complications include payroll deduction of taxes, which I have no idea how to do. That one will probably ultimately be easy, once I get a program of some sort to handle it. Maybe something like Quickbooks from Intuit. I use Quicken for my finances (and TurboTax for my taxes) and I've been happy with those products, so I'm going to explore whether I can use something like that for payroll deduction.

Another concern is the lack of backups. With day care, if one of the people who watches our kids in a given room (there are different rooms for different age groups), the day care handles covering it with someone else. On the other hand, if we have a nanny and she is sick or unavailable, we are stuck - one of us will have to stay home. That means using up precious vacation or sick days, which neither of us has in abundance. Then again, with day care, when one of the kids was sick, they'd send him or her home, and we'd have to take a day off of work for that. Thinking about that further, we probably would be staying home more often with day care than with a nanny.

Which brings me to one of the main reasons we are looking at leaving day care, at least for our son. He was getting sick all the time in day care. For about three months, he was sick basically continuously, mostly with serial colds, but also with something nastier at one point. He also was not eating well. So he basically gained no weight for three months, which is really bad. His doctor had concerns that something very serious might be wrong with him so he had to take all sorts of blood tests and we had a really bad several months of worry. Our old babysitter saved us.

In April, she came home from her first year at college and so was available to watch our son at home. We pulled him out of day care and he stayed home with her. It was amazing how much better he got after that. He stopped being sick, he gained a ton of weight, and is doing wonderful now. That alone makes it very hard to send him back to day care when the summer ends and our babysitter goes back to school.

Another reason I really don't want my kids in our current day care is that it is run by a church and they include "chapel" activities for the kids, increasing as they get older. It didn't really bother me when my daughter was younger because she really was too young to even vaguely be brainwashed into that garbage. I think even the church recognizes that because they don't really start with it until kids get older, probably between 2 1/2 and 3. My daughter is now almost four, though, and so she has had some of that. Partly for that reason, we also pulled her down to just one day a week, a day that is not a chapel day. What really clinched that for me was when she started spouting some god talk - nothing much, but enough for me to decide that I would no longer subject her to the child abuse that is religion.

So now we need to find a nanny for both of them for when the summer ends. My mother-in-law is here now, helping out, and we are also having babysitter help while she is here for the summer, but that ends in August.

We heard about a site online where you can find nannies, babysitters, and people looking for both. It cost money to subscribe to it, but really, not all that much money, and given what actual agencies and such charge to find nannies, it is a pittance. Much like any such search, it is hit and miss. We've met a few people that we really did not like, and few that we have. The main problem is finding someone we like who also is available for the time we'd need her, who is affordable, and who can make a committment to it for at least until my son starts kindergarten, which is in four years. I'd rather not have to go through this whole process more than once, if I can avoid it.

One woman we talked to a bit had excellent qualificaitons and we really liked her, but we really could not afford her - she wanted $650 to $700 a week. For comparison, day care for two kids cost us $341 a month (down from $379 - the price before our daughter was potty trained). We really can't afford anything more than the cost of day care, though we can't get a nanny for that little, given it is 50 hours a week. Which would make us stuck, except that my parents may help us out to cover whatever extra cost there will be. One might wonder why they don't just offer to help watch their grandkids. Well...

Our primary problem has always been a lack of family nearby who can help us out with childcare. My parents actually aren't that far away - but they really aren't close either - over an hour drive - and they are not exactly young. My mother will be 72 this year, my father 67. Both are semi-retired. Both have little inclination to help out in that regard except in the direst of emergencies - like when we had to go to the hospital one time. Since they don't help directly that often, what they do is they send financial help. Not usually alot, but enough that it is helpful. But a nanny would be a lot. Probably they are willing to do that because of their own concerns about their grandson's health. It is not like they have all that much money - they, like us, are solidly middle class, with sensible finances. But we don't have a lot of extra money. The economy isn't exactly great now - we are both on reduced income now because of it, and we never had that much to save each month.

Looking forward, my daughter will start kindergarten next year. If she were in day care, that would save us a lot of money. If we have a nanny, we'll still probably be paying the same - that would mean us paying that extra money for the next four years, until our son enters kindergarten. (I won't even contemplate a third child right now - I can't imagine how we could manage it, but I guess we'll see in the next few years).

In the end, regardless of the cost, if we can somehow do it, I think it will be worth it. I really don't want the religious crap being poured into either of their brains. I'd rather innoculate them against it by teaching them critical thinking skills. Starting over with another day care just isn't an option we'd consider. Firstly, the day care we have now is actually the cheapest one we found. It is also very very close to our house. And it actually is a lot better than a lot of the other day cares we looked at when we first started looking for one.

Having a nanny would also yield other benefits. The kids would probably eat better. The house might not be quite as trashed, as there would be someone here to pick up a bit, something two working parents seldom have time to do, and there would not be the mad rush to get two kids ready to go to day care in the morning, nor would there be the mad rush home each night to pick them up.

Still, the process of finding someone has been hard. We've never done it before. We don't know how it will turn out. A nanny is more than an employee - it is like interviewing someone to join your family. During the week, this person would be in our home more than we would, and would spend more time with our kids than we could (at least in waking hours). Several times I've been about ready to give up on the process and just send the kids both back to day care full time in August. That would be the easiest, cheapest thing to do. My son would be older than he was when he had problems and he would be in a different room, so he may do better. And the religious stuff won't be reinforced anywhere, so it probably won't leave any lasting damage - after all, it didn't for me when my parents put me in day care and preschool run by a church. The lack of damage was probably because my parents are not religious at all and we never did anything religious.

There is one woman we both like who seems capable and is willing to commit for the time we'd like at a price we could afford. But I wonder - can she really commit to that long? She is young, only 19, but then, so is the babysitter who is here during the week now. I really don't have any experience with this sort of thing - but then again, maybe I do. I have certainly had to deal with lots of child care issues over the past four years. Finding a day care, dealing with a half dozen different regular babysitters, and now even having an almost-nanny for the summer.

I probably would not hesitate to get a nanny as much if we could really afford it, on our own, and could pay someone what would be considered a professional rate - perhaps the $650 to $700 mentioned above. I don't know. For now, the search continues.

Supply-Side Jesus

2009-06-27T10:31:00.003-04:00

After sharing the link below (Lovecraft and Jack Chick) with a friend, he forwarded to me this link, which is hiliarious and accurate. I wish I could have a copy in handbill form to pass out in churches.

Lovecraft meets Jack Chick

2009-06-27T10:24:00.003-04:00

This is absolutely brilliant. (h/t to Larry). Jack Chick is insane, and yet like the proverbial train-wreck, it is hard to tear your eyes away from the lunacy that is his comic series. Of course, as a gamer, I particularly enjoyed his tract against playing Dungeons and Dragons. (I won't link to it, but rest assured, if you search for it, you will find it).

Fox News is Beyond Parody - as is the GOP

2009-06-27T08:27:00.005-04:00

It is just beyond parody that Fox "News" has yet again labeled a Republican politician in the midst of a scandal as a Democrat. This is a really signficant thing for Republicans. I know this because the GOP true believers that post to this bulletin board for a job I used to have love to call the media "liberally biased" based on such things as how often and prominently the political party of a politician in a scandal is labeled. It is something they obsess over.

This makes it even more significant for Fox to deliberately post the wrong party every time a scandal breaks. They know what they are doing and they know their audience. Another thing the GOP is really good at is accusing everyone else of doing what they are doing - particularly where really the ONLY party doing what they are accusing is the GOP. So I find that often the best way to get insight into what the GOP is really up to is see what they are accusing everyone else of doing. The accusations of MSM bias based on the use of labels tells me that the GOP does this (and also that the MSM probably doesn't - not that they don't suck in so many other ways - it is just that the ways the MSM sucks are ways that the GOP doesn't complain about because the GOP exploits them).

It is telling that every sensible person I know who used to lean Republican or was Republican has left the party in disgust. The GOP (and its organs like Fox, Rush, etc.) have gotten truly pathetic. Hell, the latest scandal on the South Carolina governor - it was out for only a few hours and already Hannity was accusing the MSM of "dragging it out" by talking about it too long. Rush is blaming it on Obama for giving the stimulus funds and "making" Mark Sanford fight a lawsuit over it, ignoring, of course, the fact that he fought his own state legislature, not Obama. Facts never matter to them, though, as the mouthpieces for the GOP are lying sacks of shit. Ahem.

As always, here's my disclaimer that I think the Democratic Party is made up of a bunch of spineless wimps. Even Obama, who has more spine than most, is refusing to do the right thing on torture and other Bush era crimes for fear of appearing partisan. Either that or he really just doesn't care. Oh well. He is still way better than McCain. No way I'm ever letting the GOP get the keys to the White House again. I guess we're just screwed.

Paizo Pathfinder Adventurepath: Rise of the Runelords

2009-06-24T06:00:00.001-04:00

I've been running the Rise of the Runelords adventure path. I started October 9, 2008, so we've been going a solid 8 months now. The players are just about to finish the third book (of six), putting them, by at least one measure, halfway through the adventure path.

Thus far, I've really enjoyed running it and the players have really enjoyed playing it. It is a very solid, fun, interesting adventure. They really don't have a clue yet what the big storyline is, but they've certainly gotten lots of little pieces of it and it may start to make some sense when they get into book 4.

One thing I do with my games is give extra experience for doing "write ups" of each adventure. I give 100 exp per level of the character doing the writeup. A few players started doing some, but really, only one player has kept it up the whole time. The list of writeups is here. The one player who is keeping up is playing a gnome ranger. Those writeups are here.

I may comment more on this as they progress. I'll certainly say something when the entire adventure path is complete, though at this rate, it will be February or March 2010 before they finish it. We play every Monday night, unless two or more people can't make it. With five players, four is enough to play. We've occasionally played with three players, but that just isn't as fun and can also get unwieldly. Thankfully, despite the rigors and trials of life, lately usually everyone makes it. At least til last week, when summer vacations are now starting to pop up.

My Advice on College

2009-06-23T06:00:00.001-04:00

Since this is college graduation season (and high school graduation season for that matter), I've thought about the sort of advice about college I'll be giving my own children when they start approaching the age where it matters.

The first thing I'll tell them is that usually an expensive school simply isn't worth the money. With very few exceptions, no one cares where you went to school. It only matters much, if at all, for your first job right out of school. After that, your work experience and how you've done at your job will be of primary importance for your career. Thus, if the choice is between two schools and one is vastly cheaper, I'd say, go for the cheap one. Free is best.

Now, there are obviously exceptions to this, like if you want to be a faculty member at Harvard Law school - they are snobbish assholes and very likely won't give you the time of day if they don't like where you went to law school. Other academic positions may also have issues with that. Also, if you want to enter into politics, rubbing shoulders with the aristocracy can only be acheived by going to certain schools. And even that is not necessarily a requirement - it just makes thing easier. There are probably other examples.

With my first thing in mind, I'd suggest going to a community college for the first two years. You can get a quality education that way for cheap and then transfer it in to a four year school. This is also about saving money. You also may get a much better education at a community college than certain four year schools. Which brings me to my next point.

For undergrad, look for the school that places emphasis on education rather than research or prestige. That's where you'll get your best value for what money you do spend. A school that emphasizes education will tenure good teachers. Almost by definition none of these schools will be considered first or even second or third tier schools. But then the tiers are set up by factors having nothing to do with education. They focus on prestige and research. You might think that if you want to do research, it would be good to go to one of those schools for undergrad. You'd be wrong. As an undergrad student, you would not be involved with any of that. If you want to do research, go to a research school for grad school. The grad students are the ones involved with the research. If you want prestige - well, see above.

Speaking of prestige, a minor aside on that. At my first law job, most of the other people I worked with were not from big name schools. All of them were amongst the smartest people I know. Or almost all. The exception was someone who I admittedly never got to know that well. But even though I did not know her, she made sure to introduce the fact that she went to Harvard Law school when you first talked to her. Now, I found that interesting, though I never really asked her about school. I had never met anyone who went to Harvard Law, so I was curious. It turned out she was one of the only people to basically be asked to leave the job. I can't claim to know all of the circumstances, but I do know that she simply was unable to really do the job that everyone else there (from much lower tier schools) was able to do. Admittedly that is but an anecdotal example, but from that, I would be wary of being all that impressed by Harvard Law credentials in the future. Prestige is a poor substitute for competence.

The next piece of advice I'd give would be about what to do while in school. I'd say, firstly, study. Get a routine. Figure out how to study. Most high schools are not all that great at giving good study habits. Mine wasn't. That was mostly my own fault. I was always good academically. I didn't have to try very hard. So I didn't learn how to study hard. I just coasted and did well. I had to learn how to study when I hit college. It took a few tries. Which brings me to another point - don't start school until you are ready.

There's no reason you have to start college as soon as you graduate from high school. Not everyone is ready for school at that point. I probably wasn't - mostly because I didn't do much real living in high school. I didn't have many friends, never went out, never really learned how to be sociable. I did learn these things in college the first few years - but then I was so busy with doing all of those other things I really didn't do some of the basics like - studying or even going to class. It was good for me to learn those non-classroom things, but I could have probalby learned them just as well without spending lots of money on tuition.

Really, in the end, you get out of school what you put into it. I'd say pick a school that is cheap, has the classes you want, and then make sure you get your money's worth. Show up to class. Study. Learn how to stay focused and organized without parents (or anyone) peering over your shoulder. School can be very good for that, but only if you are ready for it.

Finally, consider not going at all if you want to do something in life that doesn't require it. I wish this were easier than it is. So many jobs now require degrees that really shouldn't. In the end, there's probalby not much you'll get from undergad that will really be useful later in life. Most of the classes I took I barely remember and don't really apply to what I do now. The piece of paper that is a degree is more of a bullshit requirement than something valuable, though you certainly can learn some useful skills in school. The thing is, those same skills could be learned just going out and getting a real job after high school. But until society changes, that piece of paper has a big earning potential attached to it, so you probably need to get one.

An appeal on Administrative Law

2009-06-22T06:00:00.001-04:00

In my current position I often do administrative hearings, or appeals from them. It is an interesting area of the law, one that many lawyers don't seem to know much about, to judge from the number of attorneys who have represented the other side who obivously had never done an administrative hearing. I guess that works to my advantage in the sense that even though I have very little practice experience, I often find myself much more experienced (relatively speaking) than the attorneys I face in these hearings, at least when it comes to administrative hearings.

One of the frustrating things about doing admin hearings or especially appeals from them is the very low number of binding appellate cases, particularly in a specific area of administrative law. You are lucky to find even a single case in an entire area of admin law.

This is because of the way administrative law works, generally. The "trial" actually takes place before someone who, while called an "Administrative Law Judge" or "ALJ" for short, is actually an executive branch official, so they are not a judge at all (though never say that to their face!) It looks and smells like a trial, for the most part, though there is never a jury and often there is no one else in the room but the ALJ, the parties, and their attorneys (if any). Then the only appeal by right you get is actually to a circuit court (what would regurlarly be a trial court). This can also be frustrating in that many circuit court judges are unfamiliar with how to act as appellate judges and they overstep their bounds and try and take evidence or make factual findings.

In any case, this differs from how a regular trial before a real judge would work, in that the appeal by right there goes to the court of appeals. While the court of appeals doesn't always publish cases, they can, and those published cases are binding precedent.

With an admin hearing, the appeal goes to circuit court, and no matter what the circuit court decides, there is no precedential value to it, at least, none binding. You can still appeal to the court of appeals after that, but they don't even have to take the appeal. Given the expense to even appeal to circuit court, very very few admin cases ever even make it to the court of appeals. Hardly any at all. So, for the love of all that is holy (well, holy to an atheist), WHY, does the court of appeal not publish when one finally makes it there? There really ought to be a rule that ANY admin case should be automatically published unless there is a really really strong reason not to. Otherwise, there is really no guidance for all of these hearings, and there are many, and we are left to flail about trying to interpret statutes over and over to different circuit court judges, who are often left with plenty of room to "homer" you - give a favorable ruling to one of their constituents.

So PLEASE, I say, knowing that no one of any consequence in the system will read this, but still, PLEASE. Publish those admin cases when they come your way. We need the guidance. We have almost none. Even if you publish them all, there will still be huge holes in the law. At least try and give us enough structure that we aren't totally on our own.

What does it really mean to be a bad person?

2009-06-20T18:16:00.006-04:00

What does it really mean to be a "bad" person? This sounds like something akin to the question of evil, but I'm really not thinking in those terms. While there is certainly evil in the world, things tend not to be so black and white. I'm thinking more in terms of what makes a person someone who is generally considered to be a reasonably decent person. Maybe that will make more sense the further I get into this. There are several different, but related things that come to mind as I think about what makes a person "bad" (or not).

One of the first things that comes to mind is the Christian notion of "sin" and how Christians seem to like to say "everyone is a sinner." Of course, this isn't what I'm getting at all. For starters, the Christian "sin" concept includes many things that really aren't bad at all, (like, for instance, masturbation or having lustful thoughts in general), but that aside, the whole concept is really a load of bullshit. Despite protestations to the contrary, the most self-righteous Christian assholes really think they don't sin, compared to others, and look down upon others. And the whole concept seems to be tossed out the window when you combine it with right-wing canards like who the latest "Hitler" is supposed to be - would that be in Iran or North Korea now that Saddam is gone?

Another thing that comes to mind is something I've discussed here before, the whole echo-chamber and labeling phenomenon you see in online discussions and on blogs. There, it doesn't take much to get labeled "bad" - hardly anything at all, in some cases. All you have to do, really, is be not part of whatever clique is the clique that runs the blog. Or disagree with them. It is amazing just how fast a poster can be labeled a "troll" or worse, and everything they say is then discounted and ignored. And apparently being reasonable and willing to have a real discussion (while still disagreeing) is the worst sin of all, because it "tricks" people into talking with them before they are "found out" as some other label - on a feminist site, the label would be "MRA" - whether or not it is actually accurate. Really, though, the "sin" there is not agreeing with the clique while also not being a totall asshole that can be instantly dismissed.

Instead of trying to have a discussion and maybe change some minds, you just have echo chambers where, if you don't already agree in a synchophantic fashion with the clique, you are "bad" and can be ignored and insulted. Any valid points can thus be safely ignored. And the discussion is about as stagnant as a clogged sewer.

The last thing that came immediately to mind about "bad" people was triggered by a discussion on Apostate's blog about Richard Feynman's sister. I have read Feynman's books. He was a very interesting "character" and also a good scientist and writer. I really felt like I got inside his head, reading his anecdotal stories. The post in question was about his sister, who was also a scientist, and who perhaps was not encouraged in that area by her father (though one wonders if he really discouraged her either, since that is exactly what she became). But then it was also 1928 when she was born, a full 10 years after Richard Feynman, and given that timeframe, for a father to actively encourage a daughter to be a scientist as much as he had encouraged his son would really have made him a radical feminist for his time. (Apostate also referred to some sibling rivalry - I really discount that as anything but sibling rivalry - watching how my daughter treats my son, I expect that sort of thing is common). But I digress.

What got me thinking about this was the general notion that Feynman, and his sexism, was a product of his time, or was just a character flaw that he was not aware of, or was blind to. And does that make him a bad person? What does it mean to be a "bad" person? Feynman certainly seemed like he would be a fun person to know and interesting to hang out with. He seemed decent enough, though obviously I never met him. Yet there is that glaring sexism. Does that make him bad? Would he even have been that way if he had been born in 2018 instead of 1918?

Of course, sexism isn't the only ism a person can have. Which brings me to another post of Apostate's that led to thinking about this, one where she discussed meeting up with some Christians to buy some stuff and finding out that they were very decent people to her, contrary to her notion of how right-wing people are. So if someone is a kind and decent person to those they personally meet, but have politics that are the opposite of yours, even against yours (like being against gay marriage when you are gay), does that make them "bad people"? I tend to think most of them really aren't, simply because most people, when they get to know someone in a group that they would otherwise be against like that, their attitude softens. I'd bet a good proportion of right-wingers who are against gay marriage would soften or change their tune if they had good friends who lived next door who were gay and married and saw how decent most of them were. Suddenly, the notion would not seem so alien and threatening. Of course, maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part. But one can see this playing out now in Iran - where the "evil" Iranians are now looking much more human and sympathetic simply through looking at them as people through this election crisis. Hell, the right-wing crazies are upset by this because they would rather have the simple, cartoonish evil figure they can call their next "Hitler."

Is it a blind spot? Blind adherence to ideology without thinking about how it impacts real people, since you never see the impact if you don't know any people impacted?

Maybe I'm naive, but I think most people, if you knew them personally, would probably be pretty decent. Maybe it takes a little time to get to know them so they'd "invite you in" so to speak, but I think most people have a natural, social tendency to, well, be sociable. I think that is why political movements try so hard to make people into labels or numbers - to counteract that natural human tendency to be decent to people you know as people. Dehumanization of the opposition would not be necessary unless most people were reasonably decent.

That's why it always alarms me to see it, even when it is done by people whose politics I agree with. I'm sure I've done it. Right now, I completely ignore anything anyone from the GOP side says on any issue because right now, the GOP has shown itself to be purely about power, talking points for the next 24 hour news cycle, and nothing else. No real debate. No real discussion. Just empty, reflexive opposition. Is that me just labeling them as "bad" so I can safely ignore them? Maybe. Though I tend to think of it more as a learned response to actual bullshit. The GOP is really in a death spiral right now. And there are actually people from that side of the aisle who are not batshit crazy - they just all get excommunicated from the GOP when they stray from the crazy party line - look at Andrew Sullivan. He's a conservative who has been exiled because he dared to break ranks. I still disagree with him on a lot of things, but he actually has shown himself to be thoughtful and willing to change his position when there is new information. A debate with him I would see as actually being fruitful as well as interesting.

Just some random thoughts for a Saturday evening.

Huge New Michigan Case: Michigan Indigent Defense System On Trial

2009-06-12T10:31:00.003-04:00

A HUGELY significant case came out from the Michigan Court of Appeals today. In a nutshell, the case is a class action against the State of Michigan and the Governor for failing to provide adequate defense counsel for indigent defendants.

What is significant is that the case is being allowed to go forward. I will post more about this once I've had time to read and digest it all - the opinion is 53 pages long and the dissent is 35 pages long. It also will remain to be seen if it survives Michigan Supreme Court review, but there is a chance it could after last year's election.

The case is Duncan v State of Michigan. Here is the opinion. Here is the dissent.

Caperton Decision - Justice prevails - barely

2009-06-08T12:00:00.003-04:00

The United States Supreme Court just released its Caperton decision today.

The case, in a nutshell (From the Syllabus):

After a West Virginia jury found respondents, a coal company and its affiliates (hereinafter Massey), liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, and tortious interference with existing contractual relations and awarded petitioners (hereinafter Caperton) $50 million in damages, West Virginia held its 2004 judicial elections. Knowing the State Supreme Court of Appeals would consider the appeal, Don Blankenship, Massey’s chairman and principal officer, supported Brent Benjamin rather than the incumbent justice seeking reelection. His $3 million in contributions exceeded the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and by Benjamin’s own committee. Benjamin won by fewer than 50,000 votes. Before Massey filed its appeal, Caperton moved to disqualify now-Justice Benjamin under the Due Process Clause and the State’s Code of Judicial Conduct, based on the conflict caused by Blankenship’s campaign involvement. Justice Benjamin denied the motion, indicating that he found nothing showing bias for or against any litigant. The court then reversed the $50 million verdict. During the rehearing process, Justice Benjamin refused twice more to recuse himself, and the court once again reversed the jury verdict. Four months later, Justice Benjamin filed a concurring opinion, defending the court’s opinion and his recusal decision.

The Court held that under these circumstances, Due Process required recusal.

Of course, this is the correct decision. There's no way in hell that judge should have stayed on that case under those circumstances. That he did shows he has no shame whatsoever and also knows how to ruthlessly exercise and exploit his power. So he has a bright future ahead of him in the Republican Party. What is scary about this case is, like many recently, it was decided 5-4, and no surprise, the 4 was Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. What was the difficulty the gang of 4 had with this case? Well, they fear there will be an explosion of suits about recusals after this, with no clear standards about when recusal is required by the Constitution.

In other words, they say, because there is apparently not a "bright line" test or simple rule, there can be no remedy for this under the Constitution. One wonders if the $3 million in contributions came from Planned Parenthood and if the case was an abortion case, if these same four judges would have declared that to be without remedy. Then again, maybe they know that such cases are seldom to arise the other way around because the parties with deep pockets and millions to spend on judicial elections will almost always be GOP or GOP sympathizers (big business interests).

You really have to hand it to them - they throw up their hands helplessly as injustice is done and say that they can't do anything about it because they can't come up with a simple enough rule. And here I thought the right-wing always said that judges shouldn't make new law (rules) - they should just act as impartial umpires. Roberts said that at his confirmation hearing. Yet here is a clear foul, and he throws up his arms and says that he can't call it a foul because if he did, some abstract, bad things might happen in the future - so better to call the foul ball a "fair" ball.

What a load of crap. Under the facts of this case, there is no way in hell that judge should have been on that case. You don't need any special rule to see that. The facts speak for themselves. And they are extreme facts. Absent such an extreme circumstance, it is also clear that you will not find a due process violation, or at least not very easily. So the talk of doom and gloom about all the litigation this will spawn is a load of crap. I think what irks them is that justice was done, and it was won by the little guy against a big corporation. Then that was "remedied" by a reversal by this tainted judge. Now that "remedy" is at risk with a remand. Can't have that.

It is scary to think how close we are to so many 5-4 bad decisions. I wonder if the new justice will live up to the name. I can only hope.

I Love Paizo - Keeping the spirit of Dungeons and Dragons 3.5E Alive

2009-06-05T12:48:00.007-04:00

I love Paizo. And not just because Erik Mona, the head publisher, dropped by and left a comment on this blog recently (though that was pretty cool - he has his own blog, btw). And it is not just because they did Dungeon and Dragon magazines right up until Wizards pulled the rug out from under them and cancelled both in anticipation of the fourth edition of D&D. While that is a good reason, it is also one in the past, since the magazines are no more.

No, I love Paizo because they are the main company that is keeping Dungeons and Dragons 3.5E alive right now, at least in spirit. I would perhaps have liked it if they kept right on putting out products for 3.5E specifically, instead of switching over to a somewhat modified, 3.75E, if you will. But so long as there is strong compatibility there, that should be ok. And maybe it is the case that they needed to do that in order to continue to put out new products that mesh, because of licensing issues and so forth. It can be hard to go from being able to do "official" rules stuff in Dragon and other products to doing unofficial, 3rd party type stuff. Again, though, that is just speculation on my part.

While I will continue to play 3.5E, I will pick up Paizo's new rule book when it comes out. I owe it to them to check it out and I may incorporate some elements into my game if they are easy enough to do so. I think of it as sort of the Unearthed Arcana of the 3.5E system (though I know there already is a book of that name, I am thinking back to 1E).

I love the Pathfinder modules and series of adventures. There is nothing better than a campaign that is all along one storyline, even if there are side-treks along the way. I do wish they would at least go to level 20, if not Epic (Epic would be asking a lot). It would also be nice if there were more high level adventures. I know they are harder to do and take up more space, but I, for one, would be glad to pay a premium for high level or Epic adventures. I've even toyed with the idea of trying to publish a few myself - I have come up with a few adventures of my own in that area to run for my game over the years. I had to. There was almost nothing else available. I'd think of it as a huge untapped market and business opportunity, but then again, maybe there aren't many adventures that level because they don't sell well, for whatever reason. (Though really, how could you tell, with such a small sample size - I know of exactly one epic level adventure, from Goodman Games, and of only a handful of adventures over level 15.)

But back to Paizo love. I love the other, support products that have come out for Pathfinder as well. It is nice to have a living, breathing world out there that will get continued support for the foreseeable future.

I don't know of any other companies like that out there, but then I admit that I haven't had much time to look (so if there are any, I'd be glad to know about it). I was terribly disappointed that Goodman games completely abandoned 3.5E for 4E. Why not do both? I know you can't do a single product for both, but I thought you could have separate product lines. Unless Wizards have really been asses about that.

In any case, I will be picking up the new Paizo player's handbook when it comes out and I'll post my thoughts on it here when I do (and have had time to peruse it).

So, my hat's off to Paizo. Thanks for helping to keep my beloved game (version 3.5) alive and kicking. While I would have played 3.5E regardless, it help keeps the spirit of 3.5E alive, and that is a very good thing.

Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures: Dangerous Delves - A Review

2009-06-03T12:51:00.006-04:00

I recently got the Dangerous Delves set. This is the second set in the newly revamped D&D miniature line. I actually ended up buying more of these than I wanted to (or needed to) but that was my own mistake.

With the old 60 piece sets (24 rares), I'd order three factory boxes of 12 each and generally get an almost full set with four or five of each uncommon and 8 of each common. But this set has only 40 pieces and there are only 16 rares. So It would make sense to order 3 factory boxes (8 packs per box) to get 24 rares, or 50% more than that total number of different rares, same as with the 60 piece sets. Apparently, though, my brain was elsewhere when I ordered, because I ordered 4 boxes and got 32 of these. So I ended up with a lot. It turned out ok, though. (My brain was really elsewhere because I totally forgot I even had ordered it and almost ordered a second shipment of 3 more factory boxes until I noticed it on my credit card statement).

Notwithstanding the above, it requires buying fewer sets to get a complete set, which may be attractive to some. It is to me. It probably is more expensive per figure now, but they are much more focused, so you get more value for the money. As I mentioned in my previous review, I like that they separated out Player Character minis from the "monster" minis. This is a good model and I look forward to further sets to see what they put out.

First, the good: The Aboleth. I really really like this figure. And not just because I've always wanted an aboleth figure. It is also a really cool-looking figure, with interesting colors, a cool base, and just a general "wow!" to it. I look forward to having an aboleth in my game now. I had one once, and had to use a paper cut-out to show the players what it looked like.

The nice: Visibible figures - there are 8 different "visible" figures, that you see from outside the box. This is also a new feature of the line. I had some worries about this with regard to factory boxes. I mean, if they were randomly packed in the factory boxes, the visible factor would actually count against anyone who would order in bulk, because you wouldn't get to see in advance what it was you were getting. But they solved that issue rather nicely. There are eight packs per factory box, and in every single one, there is exactly one of each "visible" type in the box. So I got exactly four of each visible type from my four factory boxes. You couldn't ask for a better way to do it.

The visible figures themselves are all good. I liked all of them. I think this forced Wizards to make all of them decent figures because otherwise, you might get uneven sales, where certain "visible" boxes don't sell because the visible figures are significantly less desireable than others. I think there is a good balance. While certainly some of the figures might sell more than others for one reason or another, quality or "coolness" isn't likely to be a major factor there.

I liked that there were a few creatures in this set that had never been done before that were otherwise "common" in mythological lore or at least in D&D lore, like the Unicorn and the aforementioned Aboleth. And even better, the rust monster! What an annoying little bugger those are. Little aside: those were apparently a Gygax creation based on inspiration from a small, plastic "monster" figure put out in the 1970s. Even cooler, I have one of those original plastic toys. Even cooler, I think it is one of the originals that the rust monster was based on. I got it when I was a kid as one of the toys out of a box of toys you could pick from at the dentist office, and that was back in the 1970s. Unfortunately, it is not to scale with the regular minis - it is slightly larger than a "large" creature, doesn't have a base, and isn't as nicely painted as the "real" rust monster figures (which are medium sized). Still, it is a little bit of D&D lore.

The overall ratio of really cool, useful figures to figures that are less-so is very good compared to the old 60-piece sets. In many of those sets, each set would seem to have one to four figures that were so "sucky" (in my opinion) that they really were not useful for anything. They weren't of main-line creatures or they were just not all that nice to look at. This set doesn't have any figures I would classify that way, so that is good.

There are some figures in this set for figures that are only in the 4E game with statistics. That is not a problem if you play 4E, but if you don't, to me, that is a waste of a figure. Though since the figures themselves all look pretty good, I could probably find use for those other figures eventually, perahps making up my own 3.5E stats for some of them. Still, that is a minus overall. It would not be if Wizards (or somebody) put out 3.5E stats for them, but given the draconian licensing requirements to put out 4E stuff (you can't put out any 3.5E stuff if you do 4E versions of it, and vice versa), this seems unlikely.

The big sore spot for me on this set is the Beholder. The figure itself looks great. The problem is, the base is soft plastic, and it is curled up, making the figure fall over. I haven't figured out a way to fix this. I can bend it back the other way (the base) and get it to sort of stand up for a little while, but the plastic eventually curls back up and the figure falls over. Which is too bad, since it really is a cool figure of a very cool monster in D&D lore. If there is a permanent solution to fixing the figures, I'd be glad to hear it. I am considering gluing a firmer base to it to see if that will work, but I'll have to find a suitable material to do it with.

The rest of the monsters are a nice mix of common standbys, like orcs, goblins, kobolds, gnolls. There is really only one of each type, but then by now, most people should have plenty of each. It is always nice to get more varieties of those staple races, and if this is a starter pack for someone just starting with minis, it is nice that there is a good mix to get someone started.

For a complete list, you can go to the Wizards site, or my favorite online store for minis, where you can also buy singles.

Overall, I was quite satisfied with the set. See my first post on D&D minis for my general thoughts on them, which still hold true. All of the figures were good (save the problem with the beholder, which may be fixable). I look forward to the next monster set, particularly since it includes "huge" monsters. I really really fervently hope they start to fill in the "dragon" gap, and give us huge green and blue dragons. Techinically we also lack a huge black (solo) but there is a huge black dragon figure with a sorcerer rider that works quite well in that role if you just pretend the rider isn't there. So really, any of those three would be nice. We already have two different reds and a white huge, so there is no reason to go back over that old ground.

Being Late: I hate indefinite waiting

2009-06-02T12:56:00.003-04:00

I can't claim to always be on time, but I really hate it when people are late. No, really, I hate it when people are late and won't let you know that they will be late. Especially with cell phones. There really is no excuse for not calling and saying you are running late.

I'm not anal about it. Certainly, with variations in clocks and people's watches, it isn't unreasonable for someone to be 5 minutes late and think that they are on time. That doesn't really upset me. But when it goes over 5 minutes, and where there hasn't been a call ahead, that really bugs me. What makes it worse is when I then have to sit and wait and wonder when or if someone is going to show up. I hate indefinite waiting. Waiting sucks, but at least if you know how long you have to wait, you know when to expect it to be over and can do other things. Indefinite waiting is like torture. You sit and wonder how long you'll be waiting. Uncertainty leads to stress and worry.

If the time was an important one, like, say, the start of court or a movie, then I am less forgiving of being even 5 minutes late. But then in that case, I'd try and make the meeting time early enough that even 5 minutes late is not too late for the event in question. I'd try and meet 30 minutes (or more) before court. Or at least 15 minutes before a movie start time (at the movie theater).

C'mon people. If you are running late, at least call. That is the police, responsible thing to do. I understand that unexpected delays can happen. They happen to me far too often, especially dealing with two small children. Just call. And call again if anything changes. Information is power. Information can also help defuse irritation.

One last note. I really don't care if other people are late for something when it only hurts themselves. Like if someone else is late to a class I'm taking. They miss some class. So what? It only hurts them. They're paying for it. They are the customer. If they want to flush money down the toilet like that, that's their business. What annoys me, actually, is when the instructor makes a big deal out of it. Like when they lock the doors, or something like that only an asshat would do. Or when they start talking to the person walking in and chew them out, complaining how it interrupts class to have someone come in late. The thing about that was, when someone walks in late and no one says anything, it really doesn't interrupt anything. You can tune it out and ignore them. The REAL interruption is from the teacher yelling at them. And guess what, teacher, that is YOUR fault. You may not be able to make a student arrive on time, but you can certainly control your reaction. If you want to chew out a student for being late, do it on your own time, don't waste MY time for it. I place the blame for that squarely on the teacher's shoulder. While I can understand the irritation at the late student, class time, which is MY time, which I am paying good money for, is not the appropriate time to express it. It is unprofessional and childish and I expect more for my money.

Now, someone might argue that the display of childish yelling at a student for being late during class serves as a deterrent to others being late, but to me that only makes sense as an argument if there is a real distraction caused, and again, there is none if you just never yell in the first place. So there's really no savings to be had. Just ignore them. They paid for it, they can show up late if they want. If you really want to say something, do it privately.

Thus ends my rant.

Obama's First Supreme Court Pick: A New Perspective Needed

2009-05-25T06:00:00.000-04:00

Obama will soon get to select his first pick for the US Supreme Court. It seems likely to be a woman, perhaps a minority woman. And that is good. We need more women on the court. We also need more minorities, particularly those who come from a non-privileged background. But beyond that, we need something far more important. We need a fresh perspective on the court.

What is missing from the court, and what is missing from most judicial positions, is the poor defendants' perspective. We need someone on the court who has a great deal of personal, in-the-trenches experience with the criminal justice system, on the defense side, representing poor defendants. In short, a 20-30 year veteran of a large metropolitan area public defender's office is what the court needs. Prosecutors are vastly overrepresented on the courts, particularly at the higher appellate level. As are lawyers who represent the monied elites. There is no one on any significant court who has real trench lawyer experience, from the soul-crushing perspective of defending thousands upon thousands of poor defendants.

This position will be just one vote of nine. And this is replacing a center-left judge as it is, so there are not likely to be any earth-shattering alterations in the court's jurisprudence from this pick. But what there will be is a voice in the room. A voice that can counter the too-often heard judicial voice that, though some legal fiction or another, completely negates the real-world experience of the court system as seen from the eyes of those who are most often crushed by it: indigent defendants. Just having that voice in the room where those nine justices hash out their decisions will make a real difference. Thurgood Marshall was that voice once. That voice is sorely missed. I hope Obama puts that voice back on the court. I somehow doubt he will this time, since exactly zero of the listed candidates are public defenders, but maybe he'll get another pick after this one. I won't exactly be holding my breath then, either. But I can dream, for now.

GOP: Torture is not the point - It is all about Pelosi

2009-05-24T10:26:00.005-04:00

Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, has come under fire recently for allegedly knowing about the torture (excuse me, I forgot to use Orwell-speak: "enhanced interrogation techniques) in 2002 from a CIA briefing. The GOP is all over her for this, blasting her for suggesting the CIA isn't being truthful, blasting her for "knowing" and even going so far as saying, via Michael Steele on Meet the Press, that whether there was torture and whether or not this was a good thing "was not the point," the point was all about Pelosi and what she knew at the time. Oh. My. God. (Said the atheist).

Now, it isn't surprising that the GOP, morally bankrupt and bereft of anything but talking points for the latest 24 hour news cycle, is doing this. That is all they know how to do. What is surprising is how the MSM totally buys into this bullshit. Ok, that isn't surprising either. Sigh.

Just for sport's sake, I'm going to list all of the reasons why this whole Pelosi thing is bullshit. There's so much bullshit there, it is difficult to know where to start.

1. Whether or not she was briefed, torture is the issue, not what Pelosi was told. In the long list of people that deserve to have their asses thrown in a hole for life for violating the law, Pelosi would be dead last on that list (if she were on it at all) even if she did know about it. Telling someone about a crime isn't the same thing as planning and executing it yourself. Sure, if she did know and did nothing, that is a problem, but until the planners and perpetrators of torture are tried and convicted, we should not be going after the mealy-mouthed 3rd-hand enablers. First things first.

2. If you buy into the GOP bullshit that there was no torture or that it was legal torture or that it was justified, then why are they complaining at all? What duty is there to report about legal activity? By complaining so loudly about Pelosi, the GOP is admitting that there was wrongdoing done by the Bush administration - they are admitting there was torture and that it was clearly illegal. Otherwise, why get so upset about it?

3. The GOP people complaining about how horrible it is to malign the CIA are the exact same people who blasted the CIA up and down during the illegal outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. So I guess it is only ok to blast the CIA when it does something that harms the GOP electorally. I wish the MSM would be as good as, say, the Daily Show, at pointing out these partisan 180s - and better yet, would then completely ignore everything said by political types who do them, because they are empty bullshit. But this goes beyond just this issue. It still amazes me that only shows like the Daily Show actually call people out on things like this. I guess reporters or networks don't want to jeopardize "access" - but what is the point of "access" if you aren't allowed to report anything meaningful?

So, to sum up, according to the GOP: the CIA is out to get president Bush, the CIA is beyond reproach, torture is fine, there was no torutre, there's no issue at all, and hey, Pelosi is evil because she was briefed on a non-issue.

Maybe Gen Con Would be Fun After All

2009-05-22T06:50:00.004-04:00

A comment in my last post about Gen Con raised an interesting point. That Gen Con isn't just about the "Castle" - it isn't just about what Wizards is doing. There are also lots of third-party vendors there, many of whom are still supporting 3.5E. There is Paizo. That is a good point. I hadn't really thought of that.

I mean, I still feel like there is some of the magic lost, in that a big focus of what is there will be on Fourth Edition (4E), something I have zero interest in. Even sadder, the only other RPG I am at all excited about, though I haven't played it much at all (til just the past month) is equally of the wrong edition. I refer to Shadowrun. I really liked 2E of that, and played that quite a lot, a long time ago. There was a 3E that changed a few things but which was probably 80% the same, and compatible enough that you could keep using the old system. There were even a few things with 3E that, looking at them now, might be good to add to 2E even if I don't want to shift totally to 3E (and I don't). But alas, there is now a 4E of Shadowrun, one that radically changes everything, including the very core of the system mechanics. I really don't like that at all.

In addition, there are a TON of books out for 2E and 3E for Shadowrun, and not much at all is out for 4E, so even if I liked it, most of the game is not covered. Well, except for the old books on geographical areas. Those are probably useable with any edition. They are mostly info about social structures and such, not game mechanics. They were also really good. But to get back to the subject at hand, the fact that there is now a 4E I'm not interested in for Shadowrun means that the main Shadowrun booth will be of no interest to me. And sadly, there are no 3rd party vendors for Shadowrun that I'm aware of, beyond a few magazines here and there.

Now, on the upside for D&D, there are a ton of 3rd party vendors. But I wonder just how many will still make new stuff for 3E. The way 4E is being licensed, you aren't allowed as a vendor to make a product that is both for 3E and 4E. It is all or nothing. They are essentially doing scorched earth, to make sure everyone switches over to 4E. Goodman games, for instance, is only making new 4E modules, not any 3E. Even Paizo, my favorite, which is not going 4E, is also not really staying 3.5E, either. They are making their own version, call it 3.75E. It may have some interesting changes. And maybe it won't change enough to be all that incompatible, but it still feels like 3.5E is being abandoned by everyone.

So it is an open question whether there will be much, if any, new products put out by 3rd party vendors for 3.5E. I suspect there won't be. But I could be wrong. Still, that may make it worth going out, just to see what is out there. It is more than just about the system. But it is still sad to me that the games I love the most are essentially dead systems. That takes a lot of the excitement out of the convention. All of the big announcements or previews of new rule books and what-not will be things I have no interest in. It may be a bittersweet convention. But I'll at least take a look at it now. I could be wrong.

New TV Season Disappointments

2009-05-21T06:52:00.002-04:00

Well, not that this is all that important, but they announced what series will be renewed for next year, and it looks like, as usual, the shows I like tend to be the ones that get axed. They axed Life and Terminator. Disappointing. I suppose I am at least glad they kept Chuck. I am also happy they kept Terminator at least long enough to complete the second season. I hate it when they axe series like that in the middle of a season, so you don't even get that limited sense of completion. They did that with Daybreak, which I really liked. I didn't even know they cancelled it until I saw the DVR stopped recording it.

They really don't like to give some series a chance to find an audience.

Oh, and they renewed Dollhouse, which I like just because I like Joss Whedon. I haven't had time to actually watch it yet, but I will soon - the whole thing is on my DVR.

J.J. Abrams's Star Trek: A Review

2009-05-14T12:27:00.004-04:00

I saw Star Trek last week, on opening night (May 7). I saw it in IMAX. I really enjoyed it.

The movie was invigorating on many levels. It literally brought life back tot he franchise. I personally think Star Trek was, for many years, sort of stagnant in the episodes on TV. Not that there weren't some great episodes, even in the last season of Enterprise (not that I saw every single one either, which is telling in itself). There were some great episodes. But I think the owners of the franchise, like Rick Berman, had sterlized things so much that there simply wasn't room for real good, human storytelling.

I think Ron Moore saw this when he wrote for Star Trek on TV, and brought it to Deep Space Nine when he was finally freer to do so. (As he said, he got more freedom there when Rick Berman was busy with his new baby, Voyager). Ron Moore then brought even more of that sensibility to the new Battlestar Galactica, which was beyond awesome. But now I digress.

This new Star Trek starts basically right when Kirk is born. And it being Kirk, it is a pretty action packed moment, even if the future James T. Kirk is only a passenger along for the ride.

As has been well known, the start also includes a change in the timeline, which can then explain away all of the differences you see from that point forward. And there are more changes, still. Warning - I might as well use spoilers, because otherwise, how can I really talk about the movie?

Kirk is born as his father takes command of the starship he is on after the Captain is killed. The Captain went over to an attacking Romulan vessel from the future (though they don't know this). The vessel is destroying Kirk's ship, so George Kirk, his father, evacuates the whole crew and then manually rams the Romulan vessel, allowing the crew to escape. (Autopilot was offline).

Now Kirk grows up without a father, and perhaps, without a brother either. You see him as a child racing a car (off a cliff). At the same time, we see Spock's childhood on vulcan.

Spock is in a learning center that is very much a nod to the training program you see Spock using at the start of Star Trek IV - lots of children in little pits, doing the same training. Then you see Spock, as other, full vulcans come up behind him, he quips, "I assume you've prepared new insults for today?" in a matter-of-fact tone. You soon learn that this is attempt 35 to provoke an emotional response from Spock. This time, it works - by the classic method - they insult his mother. So he jumps on one of them and proceeds to beat the crap out of him.

Later you see Spock about to get accepted into the Vulcan Science Academy. They note, with some disdain, that he applied also to be in Starfleet. He said he was logically applying for a backup. They tell him it isn't needed, because he is in. But then they also add he succeeded, "despite his handicap". Raised eyebrow. "What handicap?" asks Spock. "Your human mother." At which point, Spock, in polite vulcan fashion, tells them to stick it and he goes into starfleet. So again, insulting his mother is what sets Spock off, though with no green blood spilt this time. It was a beautiful moment, and it encapsulated so much of Star Trek lore and so much for Spock's character. Quninto (as Spock) is just brilliant. And it is a microcosm of what makes this movie so good. It uses tons of references to so many things in Star Trek lore, yet it is also fresh and new.

As the movie goes back to Kirk, he is 25 years old and seemingly listless. He gets into a bar and gets into a bar fight with four starfleet cadets. And frankly, Kirk is a badass. He gets his ass kicked, but still puts up a good fight, outnumbered as he is. He also meets and flirts with Uhura there. They have a running joke with that about her first name, also a nod to the original series, where she didn't have one for a while.

Kirk there is befriended by Captain Pike, who has done his dissertation on George Kirk and his final acts. This is a changed history moment, but it also has Pike telling Kirk to get into Starfleet on the shuttle leaving the next day.

Of course, he goes. And he meets McCoy on the way up - apparently the good doctor is getting a divorce and his wife "got the planet" - so despite his spacesickness and aversion to space, he goes.

Then it goes forward three years, where you see Kirk planning to take the Kobyashi Maru test for the third time. A test it turns out is designed by Commander Spock. And a test that, we all know, was the one that Kirk cheated on (as referenced in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan). Of course, you see him cheat it, casually eating an apple as he destroys all of the Klingon ships and rescues the Kobyashi Maru. It was beautiful. This results in an inquiry and Kirk put on probation - meanwhile there is an alert as the Romulan ship is now causing trouble at vulcan, though starfleet isn't aware of this. The cadets are called up to ships and off they go, which Kirk smuggled on by McCoy since he is on probation.

I won't go over all of the remaining plot points of the movie. Suffice it to say, the action is well paced and there are little nuggets of cool moments alluding to Star Trek lore EVERYWHERE. Not just with Kirk and Spoke, but with McCoy, Sulu, Chekov, Scotty, Uhura, even Pike. And yet it is all fast-paced, fun, and the characters are interesting to watch. So much is packed into such a tiny space, I have to give great kudos to the writers as well as Abrams. It truly is just about perfect.

There are a few things that are jarring. The biggest thing is the engineering section inside the ship. It reminds me more of an industrial park than a starship - lots of huge pipes going everywhere. That is the most difficult thing for me to deal with, but given how wonderful everything else was, it really did not distract me much. Another jarring thing is the phaser sounds - they sound more like shooting guns than phaser shots, but it works ok. And finally, the action sequences in space - they can get so busy with what is going on that it is hard to really see it or take it all in. Maybe that was partly because it was IMAX, but with all of the gorgeous shots of the ships and the effects, it would have been nice to be able to see it a little better than just as a blur.

Overall, an excellent movie, and it makes me excited and ready for another one with this "new" crew of old friends. Star Trek needs to go on. Given how successful it was, I'm sure there will be at least one more movie. And maybe, someday, it will come back to TV in some form or another. Hopefully with a Ron Moore at the helm rather than a Rick Berman.

There's No Political Party for Me

2009-05-10T14:48:00.005-04:00

There's no political party for me. And even if there somehow were, it'd probably be so small that it'd essentially be powerless anyway.

That doesn't change the fact that I'll sooner die than ever vote for the GOP, which means I need to vote Democratic or else the GOP wins. But it is sad that there really is no party I can be for.

Then again, Barney Frank on Bill Maher said something that did at least slightly brighten my hopes. He pointed out that the majority of Democrats really do vote progressive and do the things that I would probably want them to do (well, he wasn't referring to me, but I know what he meant). The problem is that the rethuglicans stick together as a block, so even if only like 20-25% of the Democrats split off, that is enough to kill any progressive legislation.

Still, a party that is 80/20 what I'd want much of the time is at least slightly encouraging, especially when the total number of Republicans may drop over the next few cycles. I really shouldn't get my hopes up too much, but maybe something good will come.

The basic problem, as always, is that the Democratic party has no backbone and the GOP is expert at ruthlessly exploiting power, even if they only have a little bit of power to exploit.

It scares me that the GOP is so completely batshit crazy right now. Anti-science, xeonophobic, theocratic (and so anti-atheist), authoritarian, and so completely hypocritical as evidenced by the instant 180 degree changes in position they had as soon as Obama took office. It boggles my mind that anyone with any intelligence at all could ever support the GOP with all of the crazy shit they are doing and saying now. I can certainly understand why people would not want to support the Democratic party, but the Democratic party, agree or disagree, is not run by batshit crazies like the GOP is. What really scares me is that the GOP, despite all of this, is going to regain power someday, and they will do it without changing one bit how they are acting now. Odds are it will happen sooner than the damage from the 8 years of Bush can be repaired, and we'll go even deeper into a hole. That's my fear.

All I can do now is hope that that doesn't happen, but I pretty much am resigned to it.

I also am hoping that we'll see torture prosecutions, or at the very least, a lot of disbarrments, but I won't hold my breath. I do know that if there aren't even disbarrments (of Bybee and Yoo and all of the other lawyers involved in the torture memos), I am going to be extremely pissed off and also sad that the rule of law is dead in this country.

I sometimes fantasize about going off and forming a colony on another planet or on a space station, founded by rational people and with a rational, rule-of-law government. A society founded by ratoinal, sensible atheists. Of course, this will not happen anytime soon, and I also fear that even if you did make a decent society that way, generations down the line, it would devolve back into madness. I wonder if there is really any way to avoid that. Oh well. I can always at least play Civilization IV and dream.

I Just Saw the new Star Trek Movie

2009-05-07T22:00:00.003-04:00

I just saw the new Star Trek Movie. And it was awesome! I really enjoyed it. I was going to post a review, it being Thursday, the day for entertainment around here, but I simply don't have time and need to get to bed. But I will eventually get to it, maybe tomorrow.

It was a much-needed escape from the troubles of the day. Maybe tonight I'll dream about Star Trek instead of about potentially losing my job. Woo-hoo!

Dungeons and Dragons: Role-Playing Games and Morality

2009-05-06T18:37:00.003-04:00

There is a strange intersection between morality and role-playing games. This intersection takes several forms. The first is the one that comes to mind when people find out I play Dungeons and Dragons, which is the notion that playing the game itself is somehow immoral or evil or leads to immoral, occult things. This, of course, is nonsense based on ignorance and lies, and I've talked about it a few times before. The second is the actual morality within the framework of the game. The battle of good versus evil, and pretending to fight it. That is primarily what this post is about.

The morality of actions taken in the game can be played on several levels. There is the visceral enjoyment one can get from pretending to be someone else, assuming a character whose actions and personal morality differs from our own. At its most shallow would be the enjoyment of, say, blowing things up just for the fun of it. This really is something more likely seen in a video game than in a role-playing game. Some video games only consist of blowing things up. Others add some layers of complexity on top of that, but are still just vehicles for virtual destruction. But that tends to be more of a mindless, almost zen-relaxation sort of game playing, and really is not the core appeal of a role-playing game, which allows much more freedom of choice and many more possibilities than even the most sophisticated computer game. Anyone who has played Grand Theft Auto knows this sort of fun - stealing cars, blowing things up, speeding, running from the police. There is also a deeper RPG game even with GTA, but you can take a break from that and just spread some mayhem. I've done that with that game, I admit. It was just blowing off steam in a safe manner. That really is also more of a solo activity. I'd repeat getting caught by police over and over after a "rampage," just to see how much mayhem I could do. But that doesn't stay interesting for very long.

Dungeons and Dragons has the "hack and slash" style of play, where players just kill monsters and loot to get more stuff, but even that has some level of role-playing and character development. At the very least, there is the social interaction between the players as they go about the business of the game, and that can make for some entertaining situations all by itself.

But what I'm really interested in exploring is the deeper aspects of morality in play, where there are moral dilemnas beyond just the basic "killing evil monsters." Such things can get quite complicated in a game. Some players just go deep into the role-playing aspect of such things and there is almost no killing of monsters at all. I must admit I have never played such a deep game, but at times every game can have deep moral issues arise.

The game by default, in the various adventure modules, tends to assume players are good and motivated by doing good (with a suitable monetary reward where needed). But there is nothing in the game that absolutely requires players to be "good". Which brings me to the alignment system from D&D.

In Dungeons and Dragons, there is an alignment system with two axises. One goes from Chaotic to Neutral to Lawful, the other from Evil to Neutral to Good. Combining the two, you can go from the vilest Chaotic Evil to the most angelic Lawful Good. Right in the middle is True Neutral, where you are in the middle of both.

This alignment system was present starting with the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and continued right up through 3.5E. They simplified it somewhat for 4E, but I'm going to stay with it for purposes of my discussion here.

And while the alignment system stayed the same for 2E, due to concerns of the ignorant (and somewhat hysterical), the owners of D&D made some changes to the monsters of the game to placate the nutty complaints that gaming was "evil." They way they did this was they took out Demons and Devils from the game. I should back up. In 1E, they had all sorts of mythical Demons and Devils in the Monster Manual. Some were from real mythology, some were made up for D&D's own mythology. They were all evil, with Demons being Chaotic Evil, and Devils Lawful Evil. They were also at war with each other. Primarily, though, Demons and Devils were meant to be mean nasty things for players to kill. In other words, they were the bad guys. They were not in the game for worship, contrary to what the wackos thought. The mere thought of such a thing was absurd to a player as it would be for someone playing monopoly to worship the thimble or the plastic houses.

With Second Edition, they took them all out, or rather, they converted them all to something like T'Nari and some other name that escapes me now. The names of the creatures themselves were the same. So a Pit Fiend was still a Pit Fiend, but instead of being a Demon, it was now a T'Nari or some such nonsense. It was so totally ridiculous, and gamers rightly mocked TSR (which then owned D&D) for it. Thankfully, when Wizards of the Coast bought the game and put out Third Edition, this was restored back to Demons and Devils. Maybe this was just because Wizards was a company owned by gamers, but I think it also reflected a maturing of the population of players. D&D was a bit more mainstream and the people who played as kids were now adults, making a living in the real world, and also, were voters. Maybe that also was part of the equation in going back. I don't know, but I am sure it helped.

As I stated earlier, there is no requirement in the game that you play "good." The game was designed around "good" heroes, or at least, adventures tended to be, but the reward aspect ("loot!") could also be a motivator for neutral or even evil parties of players. (A "party" is the term used to describe the group of characters that "run" together). But there can be problems with "evil" players.

Over the years, I've played with many different people - some long term, some just for a few games. Usually players played neutral or good characters, but occasionally, they played evil ones. Sometimes this led to some nasty results in game, with player against player, and generally was not very fun. Ultimately, the general consensus is that no matter what sort of character you play, you have to play in harmony with the rest of the players. This means an internal cohesion, even if the party itself is nominally "evil." I should explain something else now - what counts as "evil" in D&D's alignment system includes some situations that just don't come up in reality.

For example, certain magic or spells are considered "evil" no matter what you use them for. Like "animate dead", which turns corposes into mindless skeletons and zombies that do your bidding. This is always considered evil, even if you only do it to, say, make workers to help a farmer till his field or defend a good village against an evil invading army. That is just an artifact of the game system. Of course, the game is quite flexibile, so one could play it less rigidly and say that animating corpses is only good or evil based on intent, but by the rules, it is always evil.

Which brings me to the "evil" group of characters that is one of the campaigns I occasionally play in. That game is mostly played for laughs - or as we put it, we are an "evil" party that does good. We have lots of animated corposes (and other undead things) as "followers" and we do all of the "good" sorts of things "good" adventurers do, but we do it with methods most would consider "evil" within the framework of the game. That strange sort of contrast between methods and results is what causes the humor in it for us, particularly since we play it as the characters seeing themselves as do-gooders. Or, as we like to say, everyone thinks of themself as "Lawful Good" even when they are really "Chaotic Evil."

And that makes me think of, oh, Dick Cheney. Who seems to think he's doing "good" when he's really doing "evil." Or, to use D&D terms, when you torture, you are doing something that is "evil" - it doesn't matter what your ultimate reason for it is. Like "animate dead," the use of torture is always evil, no matter what it is you are trying to accomplish with it.

One last thought regards the truly nasty things one could do in a game, that of playing truly evil, depraved characters. Yes, playing Dick Cheney. Characters that torture and justify it as "good" - not some comical or fantasy evil like making zombies, but a true evil, like torture and lying to get power for its own sake, and all of the depraved things the Bush regime has done. And even things worse. Some people seem to think that such a thing is common, but as I noted above, really, it is not. Because most people, even in fantasy, simply aren't that depraved. Many players will refuse to play with even a single player who acts even slightly "evil." And no one wants to play with someone who stabs other players in the back. I've never known anyone to play in such a manner - truly depraved evil. Because even though it is an escape, I think just not being a sociopath would prevent a person from really wanting to do that, even in something that is just a game. We fantasize about being heroes, not villains.

I have often wondered if a truly evil party in a "good" game world would be an interesting thing to play - not the cartoon comic sort of "evil" that I referred to above that I have played, but a true evil. I wonder what it would be like and if it would really be something anyone would even want to do. I see that it may be an interesting intellectual challenge, sort of like pretending to be in the mob. But maybe I would not enjoy it at all. I don't know. For now, I'm content to play the hero. Even the "evil" group is really a group of heroes - we do good, save the village, or whatever. We just use means that the game considers "evil," as opposed to the depraved evil of, say, Dick Cheney.

Maybe one valuable thing that gaming provides is a safe arena to explore various aspects of morality that one could not do in real life. Or, as a guest star on the X-Files said once, "I didn't play Dungeons & Dragons for years, and not learn something about courage."

Torture and Religion

2009-05-05T12:56:00.003-04:00

One thing that the whole torture "debate" that is going on right now in this country ought to finally set to rest, once and for all, is the myth that religion, in particular, Christian religion, has any claims to superior morality.

The party of the Christian right; the loudest religious faction in the nation; the faction that proudly says it only votes for Christian candidates; the faction that is soaked in religion, with members living every single day, with every single little decision, based on their Christian faith (seriously - just ask them or listen to them talk). This faction is the faction that is most loudly supporting the Bush torture regime. Not just them, but their fearless GOP leaders, who of course can count on the loyalty of the religious right to support the GOP no matter what evils they support (and torture is EVIL, period). This should put to rest any notion that Christians have any superior morality.

Yes, I know they aren't 100% of the Christians in the nation, but they are the most soaked in it. They are the biggest churchgoers, going to megachurches, and smaller churches. Someone who is nominally Christian but doesn't go around quoting the bible or otherwise paying much attention to religious things doesn't count as much as a Christian for purposes of determining the religion/morality connection (or rather, lack thereof). Because the Christians don't claim that simply calling yourself a Christian is what matters, but it is actually truly being part of the religion that matters. It wouldn't really make sense otherwise. I could call myself a Christian, but really would I be one if I never went to church, believed in no gods, and thought the bible was pure mythology? (The answer is, of course, no).

If loud, unqualified support for torture is what being a right-wing Christian means, then it is clear that not only does Christianity not represent superior morality, it can actually represent a rather reprehensible kind of evil. Which is no suprise, really, but it isn't often that it is so loudly and clearly displayed for public consumption.

As Badtux noted in comments, it is funny how the party that howls about "moral relativism" from "liberals" (as a dirty word) is really the party that practices the most pernicious kind of relativism - that of all evil is good when done by their party (and all good is evil when done by the other party). I think it is an example of how they accuse others of doing what they really do themselves. That is a whole post in itself.

The Criminal Justice System Working As It Should

2009-05-04T09:34:00.002-04:00

I came across this article last week. It details how a man facing multiple criminal charges, including rape and assault with intent to commit murder, was cut loose after none of the witnesses showed up to the preliminary hearing.

There is the obligatory deer-in-the-headlights, scary mugshot along with the story.

The story is unremarkable. The comments to the story online aren't, either. There's pissing and moaning about how horrible this is, how broken our "criminal" justice system is because this guy was let go. I think that attitude is problematic at best. He was let go for one simple reason: they had NO EVIDENCE to charge him with anything.

How anyone could consider releasing someone from jail due to lack of evidence anything but a fully functioning justice system is beyond me. You see, you can't just lock someone up because you "know" they are guilty, even though you can't actually produce any evidence to prove it. But then with a proper authoritarian mindset, I guess that just doesn't occur to you.

This is a story that actually makes me happy. Not because this guy is out on the street - he may in fact be dangerous, and that is a worry. But even MORE dangerous would be living in a society where anyone could be locked up for a crime that the authorities have no evidence of. That's not justice. Letting him go due to lack of evidence, that is justice. To anyone who would complain that this puts society at risk, I counter, society is already dead if we did otherwise. Because if they can lock him up with no evidence, then they can lock anyone up with no evidence. By the way, that would also include YOU.

So I see this is a positive thing. The system worked, in a small way. Too bad it doesn't work better.

(By the way, just because the charges were dropped, doesn't mean they can't be reinstated later. If they can get the evidence, they can prosecute. If not, tough luck. That's the price we pay to actually live in a free society of laws.)

Why Do Kids Like Cartoons So Much?

2009-04-30T06:53:00.005-04:00

I wonder if there have been any studies on the question of why kids love cartoons. Or maybe it isn't all kids, I suppose I'm drawing a big conclusion from observing really just one kid, my daughter.

The thing is, she really loves cartoons. It doesn't matter what the cartoon is. It could be the Simpsons. Or South Park. Or some random cartoon that I've never heard of. If it flashes onto the TV, she wants to watch it. The same is not true of non-cartoon shows, most of which she has no interest in watching.

So I wonder, what is it about cartoons that is so attractive that she'll want to watch it regardless of subject matter or even knowing what it is about. Could it be they engage her imagination better because it isn't real? I can't even pretend to speculate on this, I really have no idea.

Maybe it is unique to her, but then again, someone has noticed something, since there are so many cartoons made for kids.

As an aside, maybe this is also the reason that in this country, there used to be a general assumption that cartoons are only for kids and so they were dumbed down accordingly. Japan certainly doesn't make that assumption, with lots of cartoons that are rated R or even X. And I should say that the US doesn't seem to have this as much either, with plenty of adult cartoons, such as the aforementioned Simpsons and now Family Guy, South Park, King of the Hill, and so forth. Maybe we learned from Japan. One big bonus to all of those (not that I watch them all) is that as an adult, I could turn on, say, the Simpsons, a show I enjoy, and watch it, and my daughter will happily watch it with me (rather than scream she doesn't want to watch it, which she may do with something non-cartoony. Thankfully, if she is in a less contrary mood, she'll instead just ignore a show she has no interest in and play while I watch).

But that still leaves the original question. Why do kids love cartoons so much?

Legos are Still Cool

2009-04-29T08:32:00.004-04:00

I admit it. I love legos. Though I guess I don't feel the need to play with them like I did when I was a kid, I really enjoy building things - first by the instructions, then by imagination.

Maybe it is just because as a kid I didn't get that many sets and now I can, but a year ago, I ordered just about every space lego set I did not have from the 1977-1982 space lego sets. As I indicated before, those were the golden years.

But my madness did not end there. More recently, as my daughter is (slowly) approaching the age where she can really play with these in earnest (and my son can at least avoid trying to eat them - he's 14 months now), I have found myself ordering contemporary sets. I ordered sets for the medieval line and sets for the Star Wars (original IV-VI, not I-III - call it nostalgia, but I just don't get excited about stuff from the newer movies). Unfortunately, most of that stuff is no longer sold on www.lego.com, so unless I go order stuff like the space lego stuff (which is rather expensive used) I can only get so much. But oh, what I've gotten. Just yesterday, the crown jewel arrived. The Lego Death Star. I think that is the coolest of all of the Star Wars sets, though I do admit it would be nice to get the Millenium Falcon (to scale with the figures) - and I would, except that it costs $500. (The Death Star was $400, but with everything it comes with, well, I could rationalize that easier...) Ok, the AT-AT would be cool, too. And that is a bit cheaper than both. So now I have a closet full of Legos that I can't give to them yet, just sitting in the boxes. Something like 10 sets, mostly big ones. (Like the King's Castle Siege, the Death Star, the Medieval Village, the Tower Siege, The X-Wing, Vader's Tie Fighter, and a few miscellaneous smaller ones. Oh, and the Cargo Plane for the City set). One set I can give them soon is the Duplo King's Castle. That is for ages 3-6, so when my son is a little older, like maybe by the end of the year, I can give that to them. That one I got from diaper points. I almost had enough points to get a second one when they discontinued the castle. I was very unhappy. But at least I got some Lego coupons for diaper points - that was how I ended up with the cargo plane - that was before I decided to get lots of castle and Star Wars stuff.

My 3 year, 8 month old daughter loves legos. She goes into the drawers where my space legos are stored and pulls them out and plays with them. I did have the sets all built and carefully put away. Now there are pieces pulled off (and put on) all of them and it is a mess. I was going to put them all away in bags, to be put together at a later time with my daughter (and son), but I never got around to it. I had put all of my sets together to see that I had all the pieces for each and I put the "new" (used) space lego sets together to make sure they had all of their pieces. And then I just didn't want to tear them apart. Oh well.

I remember how much I enjoyed playing with legos as a child. Now I just don't feel the urge. I guess I'm old. I still love having them and at least putting them together. And I find that I really, really enjoy watching my daughter play with them. It makes me feel as happy or happier when I did it as a child - just watching her play. I guess we really do relive our childhood through our children.

I need to watch money now. Well, I always need to, but there is much reason to be nervous. Still, I don't regret having gotten these legos. I know both my children will enjoy them - and so will I. And I can at least justify the Death Star by noting that $400 is what I spend on child care every single week. (Between day care and babysitters). That's like 50 Lego Death Stars a year. Wow. I can't wait for my daughter to start school!