Hunting and fishing rights have been institutionalized in some state constitutions. This is not a good idea for two reasons. First, the constitution is not the proper place to define rights for a particular group. Shall we also put into state constitutions rights for runners, hikers, swimmers, and canoeists? Second, putting rights for a certain group into a constitution leads some to believe that their rights override those of other groups.
I don't have anything in general against hunting and fishing; I have many friends and relatives who hunt and fish. I do think hunting and fishing are expensive ways to get meat. I do get irritated at those who think that they have a right to hunt and fish anywhere they please, especially those who get angry when their intrusion is pointed out to them.
In Minnesota landowners are required to post signs if they don't want others to trespass or hunt on their properties. On the other hand, it is illegal to discharge a firearm within 500 feet of an inhabited dwelling.
Some well-meaning hunters honor the first but ignore the second. One neighbor to our cabin often shoots squirrels because they get into his roof. His cabin is less than 500 feet from ours. Another set of neighbors sight their rifles in their yard. Their yard is less than 500 feet from our cabin. And at least two of them are law enforcement officers. I don't feel endangered by their shooting, and I can't complain about the noise, other than its suddenness, because I run yard machines,
It only takes one hunter to alienate people against all hunters. Unfortunately there are more than one who ignore trespassing signs and who shoot within 500 feet of inhabited dwellings.
I've heard at least three shots in the woods near our cabin today. As the sound of gunfire carries a long way it is hard to tell if the hunter was on our property or a neighbor's property. But both properties are posted. Worse yet, we've had hunters fire down our driveway. We have found new shotgun shells in our driveway. One time a hunter fired down our driveway with our bright red pickup plainly visible. The driveway is also within 500 feet of three inhabited dwellings.
If hunting and fishing rights are to be codified in legislation or constitutions, the responsibilities should be clearly codified also. I think also, the burden of knowing where hunting is permitted should clearly be on the hunters. If hunters do not have permission of any landowners, they should restrict their hunting to government lands that are clearly designated that hunting is allowed.
See also my article "Why I give thanks hunting season is over".
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
What has America come to?
Congress has just passed Bush's bill on terrorism giving him latitude on interrogation techniques. First, Bush gets to decide who's a terrorist. Second, he gets to decide if a prisoner knows something. And third, he gets to decide how much emotional and physical stress he gets to put the prisoner under.
But will this extreme stress really yield results? John McCain was tortured by the Viet Cong to reveal the names of his crew; he rattled off the names of the members of a baseball team. A Norwegian resistance fighter was captured by the Germans who wanted him to reveal the location of a certain group. To get him to do so, they stuck a screwdriver in his kneecap and twisted. He held out until he was certain that the group was at sea on its way to England.
Do only good guys give no or bad information to their tormentors? Do only bad guys "spill their guts" to their tormentors? We seem to forget that our bad guys are somebody else's good guys. They may make heroic efforts to resist their tormentors. Isn't it possible that a few days before an attack a prisoner cracks and tells his tormentors there is going to be an attack on San Francisco and gives many details. Will this prevent the attack if the details are wrong and the target is really Chicago?
Even if these techniques seem to provide results, won't we lose allies and sympathy around the world? Future "coalitions" may be much smaller.
But will this extreme stress really yield results? John McCain was tortured by the Viet Cong to reveal the names of his crew; he rattled off the names of the members of a baseball team. A Norwegian resistance fighter was captured by the Germans who wanted him to reveal the location of a certain group. To get him to do so, they stuck a screwdriver in his kneecap and twisted. He held out until he was certain that the group was at sea on its way to England.
Do only good guys give no or bad information to their tormentors? Do only bad guys "spill their guts" to their tormentors? We seem to forget that our bad guys are somebody else's good guys. They may make heroic efforts to resist their tormentors. Isn't it possible that a few days before an attack a prisoner cracks and tells his tormentors there is going to be an attack on San Francisco and gives many details. Will this prevent the attack if the details are wrong and the target is really Chicago?
Even if these techniques seem to provide results, won't we lose allies and sympathy around the world? Future "coalitions" may be much smaller.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Snail email
A few weeks ago I wrote a column on naming things. I led off with my irritation that many people call postal mail "snail mail". I gave a few examples and scenarios where email is lost more often than postal mail.
Yesterday I had a weird example of getting a reply to an email before I received the original.
Harry Welty, candidate for the 8th Congressional District in Minnesota, sent his campaign manager and me a message at 11:11 a.m. The campaign manager, Chris, responded at 11:39. I checked my email after 2:00 p.m. and received Chris' reply but not Harry's original. I sent a message to Harry at 2:14 about it. Chris responded to my message at 2:20.
Harry sent another message at 3:06 which I got at 3:04. Harry's computer clock is fast. I responded at 3:11.
I checked my email at 6:48 and still had not received the first email of the day from Harry. I checked again shortly before 10 in the evening and found the snail email in my inbox. I sent a reply at 9:56 and Harry replied to my reply at 10:21; I had already gone to bed and didn't see that until the next morning.
I suspect that the first email got caught in a stack of emails because of heavy traffic. Other messages were put on top of it, and so it didn't pop out of the stack until much later in the day.
Yesterday I had a weird example of getting a reply to an email before I received the original.
Harry Welty, candidate for the 8th Congressional District in Minnesota, sent his campaign manager and me a message at 11:11 a.m. The campaign manager, Chris, responded at 11:39. I checked my email after 2:00 p.m. and received Chris' reply but not Harry's original. I sent a message to Harry at 2:14 about it. Chris responded to my message at 2:20.
Harry sent another message at 3:06 which I got at 3:04. Harry's computer clock is fast. I responded at 3:11.
I checked my email at 6:48 and still had not received the first email of the day from Harry. I checked again shortly before 10 in the evening and found the snail email in my inbox. I sent a reply at 9:56 and Harry replied to my reply at 10:21; I had already gone to bed and didn't see that until the next morning.
I suspect that the first email got caught in a stack of emails because of heavy traffic. Other messages were put on top of it, and so it didn't pop out of the stack until much later in the day.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Weather as a metaphor for "truth"
So many people think they have a lock on truth: "Stay the course in Iraq" or "Say no to war in Iraq". As I sat in a coffee shop and watched the sky turn from sunny to cloudy to gray and back again, I thought the weather made a fitting metaphor for "truth", whatever that is,
The weather is not always either sunny or stormy. It changes from one partial state to another and then back. There may be big puffy clouds, there may be a gray overcast from horizon to horizon, or there may be gray with slits of blue. And if you go a few dozen miles away, the weather may be completely different.
So it is with "truth". "Truth" shifts with conditions and with our knowledge. What we believed true yesterday may not be so today because many things have happened since yesterday. What we believed true yesterday may not seem so today because we have learned something new to us.
Always be wary of those who say they have the "truth". No one knows everything and the "truth" proclaimers may not have some crucial facts or may not be thinking about the issue from other perspectives.
The weather is not always either sunny or stormy. It changes from one partial state to another and then back. There may be big puffy clouds, there may be a gray overcast from horizon to horizon, or there may be gray with slits of blue. And if you go a few dozen miles away, the weather may be completely different.
So it is with "truth". "Truth" shifts with conditions and with our knowledge. What we believed true yesterday may not be so today because many things have happened since yesterday. What we believed true yesterday may not seem so today because we have learned something new to us.
Always be wary of those who say they have the "truth". No one knows everything and the "truth" proclaimers may not have some crucial facts or may not be thinking about the issue from other perspectives.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Resistance is not stopped at the top
The reports yesterday of the alleged death of Osama bin Laden and of the differing views of the intelligence services and the President bring to mind some historical parallels that the President ignores at his peril. Both historical parallels have to do with thinking victory is assured by the destruction of the leadership of an opponent.
The earliest is the Ten Thousand of Greek history. Greek mercenaries were serving under Cyrus of Persia when he was killed in battle. The victors slew the Greek generals thinking they would demoralize the Greek soldiers. The Greeks elected new generals and fought their way from the Tigris River to the Black Sea, "fighting there way on foot, day by day for five months, through two thousand miles of enemy country, across hot and foodless plains, and over perilous mountain passes covered with eight feet of snow, while armies and guerrilla bands attacked them in the rear and in front and on either flank, and hostile natives used every device to kill them, mislead them, or bar their way." (1)
A more recent is the French Resistance, an uprising not led by the generals and politicians in exile, but ordinary people from all walks of life and many political persuasions. The Germans killed many resisters and their leaders, but the resistance just grew. I made a comparison of the the French Resistance and the Iraqi Resistance in "Occupation déja vu", an article in the Reader Weekly of Duluth.
(1) The Life of Greece, Will Durant, p. 460
The earliest is the Ten Thousand of Greek history. Greek mercenaries were serving under Cyrus of Persia when he was killed in battle. The victors slew the Greek generals thinking they would demoralize the Greek soldiers. The Greeks elected new generals and fought their way from the Tigris River to the Black Sea, "fighting there way on foot, day by day for five months, through two thousand miles of enemy country, across hot and foodless plains, and over perilous mountain passes covered with eight feet of snow, while armies and guerrilla bands attacked them in the rear and in front and on either flank, and hostile natives used every device to kill them, mislead them, or bar their way." (1)
A more recent is the French Resistance, an uprising not led by the generals and politicians in exile, but ordinary people from all walks of life and many political persuasions. The Germans killed many resisters and their leaders, but the resistance just grew. I made a comparison of the the French Resistance and the Iraqi Resistance in "Occupation déja vu", an article in the Reader Weekly of Duluth.
(1) The Life of Greece, Will Durant, p. 460
Monday, September 25, 2006
Why "they" hate us
Inside Islam, edited by John Miller and Aaron Kenedi, contains an excellent analysis of the roots of Islam-based terrorism - "Why they hate us" by Fareed Zakaria, "Newsweek", October 15, 2001. See also the Newsweek version for some interesting current links.
The rise of fundamentalist Islam and the rage that feeds it is not centuries old, but decades old. It arises from the failed states that have arisen from half-hearted attempts at modernization based on Western ideas - socialism, secularism, and nationalism, all of which have shaped the successful states of Europe and North America. These states failed because they were ruled from the top down with little opportunity for participation or discussion from the people. In fact, any dissent was quickly squelched.
America is seen as the supporter of these failed regimes and the purveyor of the modernism that has failed the people.
Writing shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Zakaria makes the case for a three-point counter-attack against terrorism and its supporters - military, political, and cultural. The U.S. has partially succeeded on the military front, but it has failed or has not even tried on the political and cultural front.
The U.S. succeeded militarily in disrupting Al Qaeda, but its invasion of Iraq and subsequent political failure to fill the vacuum have spawned thousands of wannabee terrorists. The U.S. has also failed politically by alienating potential allies with its "our way or the highway" tough-talking bravado. It has utterly failed culturally because our leaders have little understanding of Islamic culture, especially Arab culture. See my article "Know thine enemy".
I don't hold much hope for change as long as we have a foreign policy for an election cycle rather than a foreign policy for a century.
The rise of fundamentalist Islam and the rage that feeds it is not centuries old, but decades old. It arises from the failed states that have arisen from half-hearted attempts at modernization based on Western ideas - socialism, secularism, and nationalism, all of which have shaped the successful states of Europe and North America. These states failed because they were ruled from the top down with little opportunity for participation or discussion from the people. In fact, any dissent was quickly squelched.
America is seen as the supporter of these failed regimes and the purveyor of the modernism that has failed the people.
Writing shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Zakaria makes the case for a three-point counter-attack against terrorism and its supporters - military, political, and cultural. The U.S. has partially succeeded on the military front, but it has failed or has not even tried on the political and cultural front.
The U.S. succeeded militarily in disrupting Al Qaeda, but its invasion of Iraq and subsequent political failure to fill the vacuum have spawned thousands of wannabee terrorists. The U.S. has also failed politically by alienating potential allies with its "our way or the highway" tough-talking bravado. It has utterly failed culturally because our leaders have little understanding of Islamic culture, especially Arab culture. See my article "Know thine enemy".
I don't hold much hope for change as long as we have a foreign policy for an election cycle rather than a foreign policy for a century.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
All in all, a successful day
I've been a busy boy today, what with two singing events and redoing some of my website
I sang with the church choir this morning and with the Swedish Singers (Svenska Sångarna) this afternoon. In both cases I did quite well considering my often inconsistent singing. In both case we had a high E-flat which I managed reasonably well. I got most of the other notes also; at least my wife who stands near me said she didn't hear anything out of tune. That, dear readers, is high praise from her.
The Swedish Singers were invited to sing at the Cotton (Minnesota) Community Church Centennial. The church had been founded by mostly Swedish immigrants. We were invited to a late lunch afterward. I sat next to my friend Stan who I had bought to listen and he had sat next to a woman he knew.
The woman was a Swedish immigrant herself, coming at the age of three. She did not speak English until she went to school. It turns out she is my barber's landlady and is interested in joining the Swedish Singers. She cannot drive at night, and so if she is still interested when our next rehearsal comes around, I'll drive her. I think my price will be Swedish conversation.
The list of articles on my website was becoming unwieldy, and so I reorganized it into lists by year. The job was straightforward, but so many little things to do that it took all evening.
Thanks for visiting my blog. I hope to have more of interest tomorrow.
I sang with the church choir this morning and with the Swedish Singers (Svenska Sångarna) this afternoon. In both cases I did quite well considering my often inconsistent singing. In both case we had a high E-flat which I managed reasonably well. I got most of the other notes also; at least my wife who stands near me said she didn't hear anything out of tune. That, dear readers, is high praise from her.
The Swedish Singers were invited to sing at the Cotton (Minnesota) Community Church Centennial. The church had been founded by mostly Swedish immigrants. We were invited to a late lunch afterward. I sat next to my friend Stan who I had bought to listen and he had sat next to a woman he knew.
The woman was a Swedish immigrant herself, coming at the age of three. She did not speak English until she went to school. It turns out she is my barber's landlady and is interested in joining the Swedish Singers. She cannot drive at night, and so if she is still interested when our next rehearsal comes around, I'll drive her. I think my price will be Swedish conversation.
The list of articles on my website was becoming unwieldy, and so I reorganized it into lists by year. The job was straightforward, but so many little things to do that it took all evening.
Thanks for visiting my blog. I hope to have more of interest tomorrow.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Paths to enlightenment
Another interesting "quote" from William C. Dietz's Runner:
In spite of all the wisdom that has been spoken, or preserved in manuscripts, each soul must search for enlightenment. There is no single path, but rather a multipicity of ways, some short and some long. Go forth and find your path, help others along the way, and enjoy the journer. For this is life.
– The ascended master Teon,
An admonition to my students
Friday, September 22, 2006
The times are a-changing and the change is a-changing
Last Monday I intended to buy two stored-value cards for us to use on the buses. Usually I buy them from an attendant at the downtown transit center. The booth was closed and so I used the vending machine instead.
I had just come from an ATM and had only twenties. I knew that the vending machine gave change or, I assumed, let you make multiple orders on one cash insertion.
I stuck in a twenty and ordered a ten-dollar card. Instead of waiting for another order or spitting out a ten-dollar bill, the machine started clanking. Oh, no! I'm going to get back a whole roll of quarters! When I opened the door to take out my change, all those supposed quarters were golden. The machine gave change in one-dollar coins.
I thought of dumping them back into the machine to order the second card, but I needed smaller change and was enamored of these new coins. So I stuck in another twenty. I left the transit center leaning to one side with a pocket full of coins.
I gave ten to my wife when I got home and used ten during the week. It was fun to see a clerk look quizzically at the coins. I always explained what they were and where I got them; the clerks always accepted them without further question.
I think I'll ask for them at the bank from now on instead of bills. It is certainly easier to reach into my pocket and pull out the largest coins rather than pull out my billfold first. I know that I appreciated that ease in Canada with the one- and two-dollar coins and in Japan with one-hundred- and five-hundred-yen coins.
I had just come from an ATM and had only twenties. I knew that the vending machine gave change or, I assumed, let you make multiple orders on one cash insertion.
I stuck in a twenty and ordered a ten-dollar card. Instead of waiting for another order or spitting out a ten-dollar bill, the machine started clanking. Oh, no! I'm going to get back a whole roll of quarters! When I opened the door to take out my change, all those supposed quarters were golden. The machine gave change in one-dollar coins.
I thought of dumping them back into the machine to order the second card, but I needed smaller change and was enamored of these new coins. So I stuck in another twenty. I left the transit center leaning to one side with a pocket full of coins.
I gave ten to my wife when I got home and used ten during the week. It was fun to see a clerk look quizzically at the coins. I always explained what they were and where I got them; the clerks always accepted them without further question.
I think I'll ask for them at the bank from now on instead of bills. It is certainly easier to reach into my pocket and pull out the largest coins rather than pull out my billfold first. I know that I appreciated that ease in Canada with the one- and two-dollar coins and in Japan with one-hundred- and five-hundred-yen coins.
A quiet day in Woes-Be-Gone Woods
It's raining a bit too much to work outside at our cabin and I have to limit my internet usage.
I have to limit my internet usage because I'm limited to ten dial-up hours per month. After years of unlimited usage and now "always connected" DSL, the DSL terms put a limit on usage away from home. I checked and I have just over five hours left for this weekend and next. I'm going to be sure I'm prepared for each connected session.
I also have to check the terms of website storage. I had thought that I had 50MB available and even had a support person tell me I had plenty of storage left. On the other hand, the sales description and my account summary say 5MB and I'm at 11MB!! If this is true, I'm going to have to weed out some stuff on my site. My provider charges $9.95 per MB over per month! I paid less than that for 100MB on my 1GB card for my camera.
This is also the day I should start my next column for the Reader Weekly.
So, you may see an entry or two here today, but you won't see any picture-of-the-day on my website until I get back to Duluth and straighten up the storage situation.
I have to limit my internet usage because I'm limited to ten dial-up hours per month. After years of unlimited usage and now "always connected" DSL, the DSL terms put a limit on usage away from home. I checked and I have just over five hours left for this weekend and next. I'm going to be sure I'm prepared for each connected session.
I also have to check the terms of website storage. I had thought that I had 50MB available and even had a support person tell me I had plenty of storage left. On the other hand, the sales description and my account summary say 5MB and I'm at 11MB!! If this is true, I'm going to have to weed out some stuff on my site. My provider charges $9.95 per MB over per month! I paid less than that for 100MB on my 1GB card for my camera.
This is also the day I should start my next column for the Reader Weekly.
So, you may see an entry or two here today, but you won't see any picture-of-the-day on my website until I get back to Duluth and straighten up the storage situation.
Extreme partisanship may not benefit third parties and independents
We hear much talk about how people are fed up with the extreme partisanship on the political scene today. Many call for electing more moderate and centrists candidates. But will this be the year of the third party? Maybe not.
Peter Hutchinson, Independence Party candidate for Minnesota governor, comported himself quite well in a three-way debate in which the Republican and Democratic candidates wouldn't even look at each other. He has inched up in the polls from seven to nine percent. This despite having appeared all over the state.
I met a man at the SMDC Fitness Center who may be an indicator of the problem. He was talking politics with another man, something about not having good choices in the election. I interjected that he could vote for Harry Welty for Congress.
As we went from machine to machine our conversation continued. Finally I asked him if he had been a Republican; I thought he may have felt left out like Harry. He paused to gather his thoughts and said "Let me tell you something." He went on to say that the Republicans had screwed everything up so badly that he wants them out of power. To do so, he is going to vote for every Democrat he can. Once the Republicans are out of power, then he'll think about other parties.
I'm sure there are people to the right of the center who don't like today's Republicans but will do their best to see that the Democrats don't get into power.
I'm going to favor third-party candidates in my own political activities and votes. We have to start somewhere. But I don't think we'll see real change until some issue comes up that neither of the two entrenched parties is with the majority of the voters. It took a strong abolitionist sentiment, a sentiment that the Whigs and the Democrats did not show, for the Republican party to ascend and elect a President.
Peter Hutchinson, Independence Party candidate for Minnesota governor, comported himself quite well in a three-way debate in which the Republican and Democratic candidates wouldn't even look at each other. He has inched up in the polls from seven to nine percent. This despite having appeared all over the state.
I met a man at the SMDC Fitness Center who may be an indicator of the problem. He was talking politics with another man, something about not having good choices in the election. I interjected that he could vote for Harry Welty for Congress.
As we went from machine to machine our conversation continued. Finally I asked him if he had been a Republican; I thought he may have felt left out like Harry. He paused to gather his thoughts and said "Let me tell you something." He went on to say that the Republicans had screwed everything up so badly that he wants them out of power. To do so, he is going to vote for every Democrat he can. Once the Republicans are out of power, then he'll think about other parties.
I'm sure there are people to the right of the center who don't like today's Republicans but will do their best to see that the Democrats don't get into power.
I'm going to favor third-party candidates in my own political activities and votes. We have to start somewhere. But I don't think we'll see real change until some issue comes up that neither of the two entrenched parties is with the majority of the voters. It took a strong abolitionist sentiment, a sentiment that the Whigs and the Democrats did not show, for the Republican party to ascend and elect a President.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Unity or rule
Make what you want of this quote. It can apply to many on today's geopolitical stage.
By encouraging communications between systems, planets, and people, the ancients sought to bind their empires together. But those who wish to rule must divide populations rather than unify them. The ancients are gone. We rule in their place.This is at the head of a chapter in Runner by William C. Dietz. The novel takes place in an intergalactic set of societies in which technology was downgraded and many transportation and communication systems have broken down for lack of knowledge to maintain them. Along with the breakdown in these systems has come a breakdown in social systems. The result is a rise in anarchy, banditry, and other self-centered behavior.
Isn't compatibility wonderful?
Internet software should be able to work for Macintosh or Windows, Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox, or any other popular browser. But it ain't necessarily so.
WordPress's rich-text editor doesn't work with Safari. I did something a few weeks ago that worked fine with Safari but put some nonsense all over pages on Internet Explorer.
Oh yes, now I remember. I had done several web pages on my website with Word in Office 2004 for the Mac (or maybe it was Office 2000). They came out fine with Safari and Internet Explorer but nobody every told me about a problem. I was doing some stuff at Harry Welty's house and he showed me that hypertext was scattered over one of my pages when he viewed it with Internet Explorer for some version of Windows.
Microsoft did some fancy formatting in Word that the Internet Explorer group did not consider. I crawled through the HTML code of several pages deleting the code that caused the problem. It was extraneous as far as I was concerned. After too many of these, I just copied the text to a text editor, saved it, and opened it up as plain text in Word, pasted that text in Netscape Composer, and reformatted it as necessary.
Don't you just love it when you put quote marks in your email and then someone sends your message back to you with the quote marks looking like this (‰) or other "gibberish" characters? The person on the other end is either not using an HTML editor in their email or using a different character coding.
One has to be careful with character coding in web pages. I still have several pages that have cramped letter combinations where I had apostrophe's or quote marks. I don't know when I'm going to correct all that I still have on my site.
Harry Welty, candidate for the 8th Congressional seat in Minnesota is his own webmaster. He would like to put videos on his site but can't make them work with all browsers. If he uses Quicktime videos, they start automatically which can be annoying to repeat visitors. If he uses Windows Media Player videos, the frame might not be visible on some browsers.
He's made several calls to a tech support service in India to resolve this but has not made much progress.
Any webmasters in Duluth that would like to volunteer to help Harry?
WordPress's rich-text editor doesn't work with Safari. I did something a few weeks ago that worked fine with Safari but put some nonsense all over pages on Internet Explorer.
Oh yes, now I remember. I had done several web pages on my website with Word in Office 2004 for the Mac (or maybe it was Office 2000). They came out fine with Safari and Internet Explorer but nobody every told me about a problem. I was doing some stuff at Harry Welty's house and he showed me that hypertext was scattered over one of my pages when he viewed it with Internet Explorer for some version of Windows.
Microsoft did some fancy formatting in Word that the Internet Explorer group did not consider. I crawled through the HTML code of several pages deleting the code that caused the problem. It was extraneous as far as I was concerned. After too many of these, I just copied the text to a text editor, saved it, and opened it up as plain text in Word, pasted that text in Netscape Composer, and reformatted it as necessary.
Don't you just love it when you put quote marks in your email and then someone sends your message back to you with the quote marks looking like this (‰) or other "gibberish" characters? The person on the other end is either not using an HTML editor in their email or using a different character coding.
One has to be careful with character coding in web pages. I still have several pages that have cramped letter combinations where I had apostrophe's or quote marks. I don't know when I'm going to correct all that I still have on my site.
Harry Welty, candidate for the 8th Congressional seat in Minnesota is his own webmaster. He would like to put videos on his site but can't make them work with all browsers. If he uses Quicktime videos, they start automatically which can be annoying to repeat visitors. If he uses Windows Media Player videos, the frame might not be visible on some browsers.
He's made several calls to a tech support service in India to resolve this but has not made much progress.
Any webmasters in Duluth that would like to volunteer to help Harry?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Iraq is about the war on terror, but...
Many decry the war in Iraq as being for oil, especially since so many oilmen are involved in the administration. Many others say it is to fight the terrorists there rather than here.
George Friedman, founder of Stratfor, a private intelligence company, writes in America's Secret War that the invasion of Iraq was used to convince other states in the region to fight the war on terror.
Pakistan's secret service supported the Taliban. Iran didn't like the Taliban but didn't like the U.S. either. Many in Saudi Arabia funded Al Qaeda but the Saudi government didn't want to crack down on these donors and other supportive groups. The U.S. couldn't invade Saudi Arabia because that would inflame Muslims all over the world.
Plus, because of pullbacks in the Middle East going all the way back to Ronald Reagan, the U.S. was seen as weak by most of the players in the Middle East. So to "scare" everybody into cooperating in the war on terror, the U.S. felt it had to invade the guy everybody else loved to hate - Saddam Hussein.
The initial result was as Donald Rumsfeld predicted - the efficient, overwhelmingly armed U.S. forces easily defeated Saddam's army. But then things went downhill because there was no plan for the aftermath, because political appointees instead of experts were sent to govern Iraq, and because few American's really understood Iraqi society.
Now the U.S. can't stay because fewer people in America support the war, and the U.S. can't leave because other states will see the U.S. as weak.
George Friedman, founder of Stratfor, a private intelligence company, writes in America's Secret War that the invasion of Iraq was used to convince other states in the region to fight the war on terror.
Pakistan's secret service supported the Taliban. Iran didn't like the Taliban but didn't like the U.S. either. Many in Saudi Arabia funded Al Qaeda but the Saudi government didn't want to crack down on these donors and other supportive groups. The U.S. couldn't invade Saudi Arabia because that would inflame Muslims all over the world.
Plus, because of pullbacks in the Middle East going all the way back to Ronald Reagan, the U.S. was seen as weak by most of the players in the Middle East. So to "scare" everybody into cooperating in the war on terror, the U.S. felt it had to invade the guy everybody else loved to hate - Saddam Hussein.
The initial result was as Donald Rumsfeld predicted - the efficient, overwhelmingly armed U.S. forces easily defeated Saddam's army. But then things went downhill because there was no plan for the aftermath, because political appointees instead of experts were sent to govern Iraq, and because few American's really understood Iraqi society.
Now the U.S. can't stay because fewer people in America support the war, and the U.S. can't leave because other states will see the U.S. as weak.
Are Muslims over-reacting to Pope Benedict's remarks?
Many of the West think that Muslims are over-reacting to Pope Benedict's speech in which he quotes a 14th Century Byzantine Emperor as saying that Mohammed brought "things only evil and inhuman". After all, many in the West are accustomed to a broad diversity of opinions, often with sweeping and demeaning generalizations. We often shrug these off as more reflective of the speaker than of the target of the speaker.
Do we really? If groups feel disenfranchised or in a minority, they take great offense at criticism. There are even groups that seek verbal redress if they feel the larger group they portend to represent is maligned in the media. There are also people who take remarks out of context and ignore any qualifying statements that may have been made; taking umbrage where none was even meant.
I have met people who claim that they can take insults but are ready to physically fight anyone who insults their wife or mother.
Is it so surprising that some Muslims, who feel that their societies and view of the world is being steamrollered by the West, who live in a society where honor is an important aspect of their lives, would feel threatened by remarks critical or perceived as critical of Islam? Further, is it surprising if they are in cultures which condone violence to regain honor that they resort to violence to redress the injury of critical remarks?
As I alluded earlier, these attitudes are not limited to some Muslims, but are found in many societies around the globe. It is part of a deep-seated human belief that names have power. One illustrative belief is not uttering the name of God, because if one names God, then one has power over God.
We use names for power. Once in office, a U.S. President is no longer called Bill or George or Jimmy or Ron of the campaign but "Mr. President". Many judges will not tolerate being called "Sir" or "Madam" in their courtrooms; they insist on being called "Your Honor". How many of us dare call our doctor anything but "Doctor"? Even though all the staff refers to us by our first names, which in itself denotes power over us the patients.
If you take the long view, which many Muslims do, often long in the past, then the negative reaction of some is reacting normally. It is sad that we are getting caught in a deeper spiral of reaction and counter-reaction.
For another view of this turmoil, see "The Jagged World" by David Brooks, New York Times, September 3, 2006
Do we really? If groups feel disenfranchised or in a minority, they take great offense at criticism. There are even groups that seek verbal redress if they feel the larger group they portend to represent is maligned in the media. There are also people who take remarks out of context and ignore any qualifying statements that may have been made; taking umbrage where none was even meant.
I have met people who claim that they can take insults but are ready to physically fight anyone who insults their wife or mother.
Is it so surprising that some Muslims, who feel that their societies and view of the world is being steamrollered by the West, who live in a society where honor is an important aspect of their lives, would feel threatened by remarks critical or perceived as critical of Islam? Further, is it surprising if they are in cultures which condone violence to regain honor that they resort to violence to redress the injury of critical remarks?
As I alluded earlier, these attitudes are not limited to some Muslims, but are found in many societies around the globe. It is part of a deep-seated human belief that names have power. One illustrative belief is not uttering the name of God, because if one names God, then one has power over God.
We use names for power. Once in office, a U.S. President is no longer called Bill or George or Jimmy or Ron of the campaign but "Mr. President". Many judges will not tolerate being called "Sir" or "Madam" in their courtrooms; they insist on being called "Your Honor". How many of us dare call our doctor anything but "Doctor"? Even though all the staff refers to us by our first names, which in itself denotes power over us the patients.
If you take the long view, which many Muslims do, often long in the past, then the negative reaction of some is reacting normally. It is sad that we are getting caught in a deeper spiral of reaction and counter-reaction.
For another view of this turmoil, see "The Jagged World" by David Brooks, New York Times, September 3, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Hang up and drive!
The other day just as I was ready to step off the curb a pickup truck from a local institution turned right in front of me and pulled into the lot of the coffee shop I was heading for.
I thought the driver was someone I knew and I walked up to the driver's side to kid him about nearly running me over. The driver was on the phone and wasn't who I thought it was. I should have told him that he could have hit me, but I was too polite for my own good and said nothing more than "I thought you were somebody else."
I thought the driver was someone I knew and I walked up to the driver's side to kid him about nearly running me over. The driver was on the phone and wasn't who I thought it was. I should have told him that he could have hit me, but I was too polite for my own good and said nothing more than "I thought you were somebody else."
Poor man's mocha
As I sit in a coffee shop spending too much time updating my website and blog, I listen the various orders being made. One order that always amuses me is mocha without whipped cream. Why bother?
Save yourself half the price and order your coffee with a shot of chocolate then add half-and-half. I bet you'll hardly notice the difference.
Save yourself half the price and order your coffee with a shot of chocolate then add half-and-half. I bet you'll hardly notice the difference.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Civility still exists in politics
I am working on Harry Welty's campaign for the 8th Congressional District seat in Minnesota. I have had occasion to deal with workers or relatives of Harry's two opponents, Democrat Jim Oberstar and Republican Rod Grams.
Harry and I both know Don Ness, Duluth City Councilor and local office manager for Jim Oberstar. Don's friendliness to all is widely known in Duluth. It has not changed at all towards Harry and me since we started working to take his job away. He still gives us a firm handshake, his trademark smile, and easy conversation.
I ordered a sequence of ads at a radio station owned by Rod Grams and his wife. Chris Grams, the general manager of Little Falls Radio, has been prompt and courteous in all the emails we have exchanged. The only problem we had was an interpretation of the humongous Federal Election Commission Regulations, well over 500 pages. When she heard Harry's ad on the air, she decided it was missing a required statement and she should withdraw it. After a few more emails between us she decided to continue running it.
So there is a glimmer of hope that after all the charges and counter-charges of campaigns, those who serve in elected office will limit their partisanship and get down to the business of governing our country.
What's in a name?
I originally called this "Mel's Blog" but that sounded too prosaic. So I called it "Party of One" after my column in the Reader Weekly of Duluth. For some reason, I decided to search for blogs with that name. I found one with exactly that title and a few with additional words tacked on. I also searched for "Mel's Blog" and found one that hadn't been updated in several days.
I have been calling the blog in my own website "Irregular Blog" but I didn't want to use that as I switch links to this blog. But in the interest of uniqueness, I'll have to name both "Irregular Blog".
I have been calling the blog in my own website "Irregular Blog" but I didn't want to use that as I switch links to this blog. But in the interest of uniqueness, I'll have to name both "Irregular Blog".
Saturday, September 16, 2006
You get what you pay for
Seven years ago we had a well dug on our cabin property. We were tired of carrying water from our home in Duluth. We had a well dug because it was significantly less expensive than having one drilled.
The digging did not occur very fast because it was rainy and muddy. In fact, I had to pull the well-digger's truck out of the mud with my truck. When it was finally dug we had seven feet of water in a 20-foot well. Wow! We'll never use that much.
We couldn't drink it until it was tested. We had to pump and pump the water to get the chlorine out so that it could be tested. If I remember the test came back negative.
The next time we tested it ourselves and the result was positive. Dump bleach down and then pump and pump. The next test was negative.
Within three years a drought struck and we had less and less water. Finally we gave up on pumping at all. I would stick a measuring tape down the pipe and find there were 21 inches of water. We need three-plus feet to reach the bottom of the pipe. It got so bad that it went down to six inches of water.
One year we had water again but never bother testing it. It was not really clear. We used the water only for washing. Within another year we had no water again.
This spring we had no water to speak of again but later we did. I can't measure the water anymore because the pump is stuck tight to the pipe. We pumped gallons and gallons for washing and for watering flowers and seedlings. Even though there has not been much rain all summer, we were able to have lots of non-drinking water. We never even tried testing this year.
Yesterday, it all changed. I pumped two gallons of water with lots and lots of priming. Then we had only a trickle. It rained a bit overnight, but there will have to be several inches of water before we can pump again.
Maybe, just maybe, if we had spent a lot more for a drilled well we would still have lots of water and drinkable too. People have spent thousands to have a well drilled over 100 feet and the water is erratic or non-drinkable. But one never knows for sure.
The digging did not occur very fast because it was rainy and muddy. In fact, I had to pull the well-digger's truck out of the mud with my truck. When it was finally dug we had seven feet of water in a 20-foot well. Wow! We'll never use that much.
We couldn't drink it until it was tested. We had to pump and pump the water to get the chlorine out so that it could be tested. If I remember the test came back negative.
The next time we tested it ourselves and the result was positive. Dump bleach down and then pump and pump. The next test was negative.
Within three years a drought struck and we had less and less water. Finally we gave up on pumping at all. I would stick a measuring tape down the pipe and find there were 21 inches of water. We need three-plus feet to reach the bottom of the pipe. It got so bad that it went down to six inches of water.
One year we had water again but never bother testing it. It was not really clear. We used the water only for washing. Within another year we had no water again.
This spring we had no water to speak of again but later we did. I can't measure the water anymore because the pump is stuck tight to the pipe. We pumped gallons and gallons for washing and for watering flowers and seedlings. Even though there has not been much rain all summer, we were able to have lots of non-drinking water. We never even tried testing this year.
Yesterday, it all changed. I pumped two gallons of water with lots and lots of priming. Then we had only a trickle. It rained a bit overnight, but there will have to be several inches of water before we can pump again.
Maybe, just maybe, if we had spent a lot more for a drilled well we would still have lots of water and drinkable too. People have spent thousands to have a well drilled over 100 feet and the water is erratic or non-drinkable. But one never knows for sure.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Primary elections are unfair to political parties
At least in Minnesota primaries are unfair to parties.
Minnesota requires major parties to have open precinct caucuses in the spring of Congressional election years. That is, any voter can attend one caucus in their neighborhood (all caucuses are generally held on the same night). Each caucus elects delegates to a district convention or county convention. These conventions then elect delegates to the state convention. Each caucus or convention elects officers to carry on party business until the next caucus or convention.
Many of the people who appear at the caucuses raise money for the party and otherwise volunteer their time to promote the interests of the party. At the higher levels they endorse candidates or select committees to do so.
This bottom-up structure didn't always exist. Parties were often top-down and candidates were selected in "smoke-filled rooms". The primary elections were a "reform" to have candidates determined from the bottom-up.
The downside of this reform was that people who otherwise show no interest in the party, never show up at meetings, and don't give a dime to support the party have the right to vote in the primary. Worse yet, people who support another party have the right to "cross-over" and vote against the primary candidate they think is the stronger, therefore giving their own party's candidate a better chance of winning.
I would rather see a wide-open primary where each party's candidates run against all comers - independents, "third-party" candidates, and dissidents from the major parties. The top two vote-getters then go on to a general election. However, if any candidate gets more than fifty percent of the primary vote, he or she is elected to the office.
There are several upsides to this. People would be more likely to turn out for the primary because they will turn out to vote for their first choice. It would loosen the two-party duopoly, allowing new parties to grow and tired, old parties to lose influence. It would broaden the appeal of voting from the either-or choice of "the lesser of two evils". And the fifty-percent rule would save candidates from campaigning unnecessarily against a candidate "who has no chance of winning."
I also posted this to Harry Welty's blog.
Minnesota requires major parties to have open precinct caucuses in the spring of Congressional election years. That is, any voter can attend one caucus in their neighborhood (all caucuses are generally held on the same night). Each caucus elects delegates to a district convention or county convention. These conventions then elect delegates to the state convention. Each caucus or convention elects officers to carry on party business until the next caucus or convention.
Many of the people who appear at the caucuses raise money for the party and otherwise volunteer their time to promote the interests of the party. At the higher levels they endorse candidates or select committees to do so.
This bottom-up structure didn't always exist. Parties were often top-down and candidates were selected in "smoke-filled rooms". The primary elections were a "reform" to have candidates determined from the bottom-up.
The downside of this reform was that people who otherwise show no interest in the party, never show up at meetings, and don't give a dime to support the party have the right to vote in the primary. Worse yet, people who support another party have the right to "cross-over" and vote against the primary candidate they think is the stronger, therefore giving their own party's candidate a better chance of winning.
I would rather see a wide-open primary where each party's candidates run against all comers - independents, "third-party" candidates, and dissidents from the major parties. The top two vote-getters then go on to a general election. However, if any candidate gets more than fifty percent of the primary vote, he or she is elected to the office.
There are several upsides to this. People would be more likely to turn out for the primary because they will turn out to vote for their first choice. It would loosen the two-party duopoly, allowing new parties to grow and tired, old parties to lose influence. It would broaden the appeal of voting from the either-or choice of "the lesser of two evils". And the fifty-percent rule would save candidates from campaigning unnecessarily against a candidate "who has no chance of winning."
I also posted this to Harry Welty's blog.
Just getting started
I can't write much today. Right now I'm at a coffee shop and should get home to go to the cabin. I can dial up at the cabin, but I have to watch my dial-up hours. My provider already sent me a letter warning me about using too much dial-up.
Meanwhile, you can see some of my blogging and other writing at the site shown to the right.
- Mel
Meanwhile, you can see some of my blogging and other writing at the site shown to the right.
- Mel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)