|
|
Friday, November 13th, 2009
| |
5:54 pm - It's official
|
|
| Friday, October 30th, 2009
| |
5:25 pm - I hate...
|
that I'm still at work because of a communications issue which created an emergency that ONLY I could fix....
that I am not being paid what I'm worth
that I don't get federal benefits.
that I'm better at the big picture stuff than my 'boss' and better at the work than my subordinates.
that I'm the most 'generally knowledgable' person here...
Despite all this, you should go here and give. Give Give Give!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, October 29th, 2009
| |
11:12 am - Give!
|
|
| Friday, October 9th, 2009
| |
10:20 pm - even though I should have more to say...
|
I think I'll stop with this:
current music: johann sebastian bach: Toccata and fugue in D Minor
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Friday, October 2nd, 2009
| |
3:40 pm - Random stuff... from a random head
|
Okay -0- working backward:
Today: I really wanted to see more enforcement of HOV violators: particularly against luxury car owners who seem to think that the rules don't apply to them.
yesterday: saw a man in a coat and scarf. The scarf was wrapped around his neck. Twice. C'mon, dude-- it isn't close to cold yet. I was wearing a short sleeved shirt and light weight slacks at the time.
Wednesday: Argh! The tufte people are back. And, worse, I have no google access today. Last day of the fiscal year, and I'm forced to work. Who thought that was a good idea?
Tuesday: Ugh! My parking lot is overrun for some one day course with a guy named Edward Tufte. He seems good at what he does, but it added over 10 minutes of time for me getting in to the garage!
Monday: My cousin recently inquired about our great-grandparents as she is interested in applying for Italian citizenship. It has been fun getting some background. Need to capture this info before mom dies!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009
| |
4:33 pm - Freedom
|
Driving home yesterday evening I heard what might be either the scariest or funniest thing I've heard in a long time -- an official from the current administration -- chairman of the FCC if I caught it correctly -- who was speaking about 'keeping the internet free through government regulation'
Check me here -- does anyone know of a government regulatory program of any sort which enhances individual/personal freedom, particularly in the context of something like the internet? Particularly given that the internet is a true world market, and the only way to 'regulate' overseas content is through service bans. Where is the freedom here?
The justification for this 'freedom enhancing regulation' was to level the playing field between corporate giants and small companies. According to him, a corporation with more money can (gasp) pay for faster servers, faster response times (I understood him to be speaking about bandwidth, though he never said it -- perhaps I can pay to have a 'choke' put on my competitors?) and better placement on search engines. Anyone care to think about whether regulation is likely to truly have a positive impact on this 'problem'? Or remove the benefit that comes with having more money? Gee-- maybe we should regulate advertising on the superbowl to give equal access to all companies, regardless of ability to pay -- I'm sure that will enhance the freedom of the market place, right? Last time I checked, regulated industries had the highest cost of entry, the greatest degree of barriers to entry and/or 'natural' competition and the lowest level of innovation, generally (note- I don't mean R&D or product improvement, but true business innovation - -new ways to approach old problems).
Am I missing something here?
On a completely different and highly insensitive note: is it possibly to get botox injections in one's butt? If so, I think I saw a victim of butt-botox overdose yesterday...
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, September 16th, 2009
| |
2:15 pm - Love. Hate.
|
 |
I wants.
|
So yesterday on I-66 outside the beltway, traffic was particularly slow. I assumed it was just the usual traffic volume right up until I got close to the Exit for the beltway. Lo and behold, there was a state trooper on the shoulder looking for HOV violators in the left (HOV) lane! Amazingly, as soon as I passed him, the traffic in my HOV lane sped up dramatically, as all the violators had to get out of the lane.
This morning, the cops were stopping folks at one or another exit, and again it caused some slow down (because you could see them from the main lanes). I know that enforcement is the only way that the HOV lanes don't get abused, and abuse leads to excessive slow downs. But I have to admit that I would love a way of enforcing without causing the law abiding traffic more consternation.
I also want lane splitting to be legal for motorcycles.
Oh, and I want a bike.
And I want someone to pay me for sitting around and doing little work.
I don't ask for much. But I sure do want it.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Friday, September 11th, 2009
| |
11:15 pm - Renaissance Festival, Redux
|
For those of you who want a little better taste of the festival, here are some highlights:
This should make you want to attend for yourself, because I can promise that I only included the worst moments from the festival.
This isn't enough? The long version is posted on Facebook.
current music: Rondellus; Sabbatum
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, September 9th, 2009
| |
6:08 pm - Seen around town, or something...
|
A sumo 'bobblehead' -- just what everyone needs on their dashboard, right?
Tents just seem odd in the middle of an urban environment. This was/is in the Pentagon City/ Crystal City area.
123333. And pay no attention to the speedometer -- I'm sure I was sitting still.
Okay -- people do things to personalize cars. I get it. I even admire many. But from what I could see, this was just plain UGLY!</td>
Okay -- I'm not big on jumping on the 'Obama is a socialist' bandwagon. I think he's a pretty smart guy, trying to do a very hard job at a very hard time. I think he does believe in big government and broad social programs which are, by their very nature, in the business of redistributing property. But I do NOT believe that every such program is socialist in nature.
But I have to admit, the rhetoric of my friends (IRL) who are supporting the full measure of health reform definitely sounds like a socialist ideology. Trying to convince me that having federal healthcare reform by pointing to social security, medicare or the VA is not likely to convince me: These are historically ill run, and often cited as near bankruptcy. Equally unconvincing is directing my attention to federal education spending, federal highway spending or other federal spending on local infrastructure is hardly convincing for me: This is just the federal government returning MY money to MY community (while taking a huge chunk for its own bureaucracy and distributing it according to the power interests of the day, rather than according to genuine need or efficient national operation.
Let's be clear: You are welcome to submit any facet of your life to the government if you so choose -- but the concern here is just that -- what about those who don't choose? I fully expect to lose that choice, just like I have no choice about paying in to social security (from which I fully anticipate I'll receive no benefit) or Medicare (ditto) or the fact that my taxes go to pay for a large measure of services of which I choose not to partake.
Could I send my kids to public school? Sure. But I choose not to because I believe my kids will be better served by private education (and with the exception of TJ in Fairfax County, I do not believe there is a public HS performing as well as my daughters' private school). I do NOT get a refund or rebate on my taxes for the amount the government IS NOT SPENDING to educate my children. Nor will I get a refund or rebate if I pay for private health insurance, while tax dollars are funding a 'public option' (if it happens).
So yes, perhaps I do see this debate in capitalist versus socialist terms, but with one major caveat: The health market is NOT a true free market system now, and as such, the 'free market' isn't operating. The economic policy underpinning most health insurance leads to completely irrational economic incentives. This, I think, is why our health care system is failing so many Americans.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, September 7th, 2009
| |
1:50 pm - Renaissance Festival, Crownsville MD
|
|
| Sunday, August 30th, 2009
| |
12:12 pm - Birthday Greetings; thoughts on health care (again)
|
Happy Birthday, ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) voltbang
I'm sure many of you face the same thing: everyone is talking/thinking about health care reform. Why? Probably because regardless of your point of view, it is something deeply personal and you consider it passionately.
One of my friends offered the following: "Suppose you lived in a village of ten people, and one of those people needed an operation, but couldn't pay for it. Wouldn't you help them? I know I would."
My answer was (and I think remains): Sure I would. I would help my neighbor. But it offends me to have such help be compelled by government fiat. If I choose to help my neighbor because it is the right thing to do, that is wholly different from being compelled to help my neighbor because the government has the power to take what is rightfully mine.
This might help explain the passions of those who seem hell bent on preventing a public option, or taxpayer funded reform.
I am not saying that I don't see a need for reform, and I do think the 'private' market has failed (though I think the failure is as likely tied to government regulation and controls within the industry as it is to problems in the nature of free markets). I also believe that insurance of the sort that health insurance is warps any and all free market forces, which is why I favor mandatory catastrophic care insurance, with ordinary health care costs being borne by the individual (the original, traditional view of health care insurance). This is where I think HSAs could be a large part of the solution: My money used for my care, and I get to make the choices. I 'get' the value of preventive care, and why insurance began paying for routine care, but it is a no brainer as an economist to see why costs have spiraled out of control. And why doctors began doing expensive tests and procedures as 'routine' -- 'no one' was paying the bills. This will NOT be fixed with a public option health care plan -- it will only spread the burden onto all of us for all of us, rather than within smaller insurance pools. At the end of the day, though, I suspect the vast majority of us will pay even more of our dwindling salaries for health care than we do now.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, August 27th, 2009
| |
1:31 pm - HOV: Is it now optional?
|
Okay, I don't claim to be a big fan of the "HOV" principle: I don't think it has been particularly effective in encouraging carpooling or in keeping traffic from proliferating, or whatever. After all: 2 people driving on an interstate highway in a Hummer, a suburban, or a Dodge Charger SRT8 is still less efficient from a fuel usage/ carbon footprint standpoint than 1 person each in 2 smart cars, priuses (prii? prius? priusi?), MINIs, or even the base version of the Toyota Corolla, I think.
For those of you whose homes do not happen to be in locales where the HOV (high occupancy vehicle) concept is in use, it means that you must have the requisite number of occupants or you face tickets and fines, to the tune of $250 for the first offense, $500 for the second, and up from there.
But, I will admit that my commute is much easier, when I choose to drive, because I am a 'lawful' HOV violator: I own a prius with the necessary tags to let me use the HOV lanes despite single occupancy, a privilege for which I pay each year, in addition to having invested in a hybrid (under duress) at the right time.
Lately, though, I have noted a huge uptick in the number of what appear to be regular cars, with only one person, driving on I-66 during the HOV only hours. Did I miss the memo? Has HOV been suspended for some reason? I still see cops pulling people over at exit ramps and such, but not as many as a few weeks ago.
I can't remember-- is there an exception for people who come from Dulles Airport and continue into DC?
Mostly, though, I only care because more cars means slower traffic, and my commute takes a whole 5 or 10 extra minutes. I want my time back!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Saturday, August 22nd, 2009
| |
10:31 pm - Sunsets over the Road
|
|
| |
10:22 pm - Look at me getting all motivated!
|
|
| Tuesday, August 18th, 2009
| |
3:24 pm - Some more Health -Care -- if you dare.
|
I know, I know. Too much on health care out there already, and I have to admit, it has little or nothing to do with cars, so what the heck am I doing talking about it?
My car connection is that I heard a segment on NPR today in which a very knowledgeable and informed Brit was debunking some of the myths that are being spread about our closest ally with regard to their longstanding socialized, single payer, system. He did a nice job, setting a tone of sadness and disappointment, mingled with calm outrage at the lies being spread around to fear-monger (the thing the GOP does best, apparently, these days!)
However, something which they glossed over quite casually was a part of the segment in which he spoke about the recent reforms of the UK health care system. The key isn't that they had reformed it, or that the reform had gone a long way towards solving some of the problems, but what the reform consisted of:
The magic bullet? Money! and lots of it. The speaker indicated that the key reform was a tripling of the government expenditure on health care by the government over a few year period, in order to do away with the shortages of doctors, nurses and facilities. So, if I understood this person correctly, what he was saying was that running an effective public health system takes scads of money.
I can't help wondering, then, if the whole debate over health-care reform is misplaced: Should the key reform ignore whether there will be a government option, use of co-ops, passing lots of legislation, etc... and instead focus on finding a way to fund the ever increasing financial burden of health-care? Is it possible, in reality, to lower health-care costs in any meaningful way without rationing? I suspect the answer to this is, ultimately, no! regardless of whether we reform health-care in this country, costs will continue to spiral into the stratosphere and beyond. So, then, at the end of the day, what should be done?
Good question.
I wonder if anyone really has a good answer...?
I end with this:
Health care has pundits
On both sides speaking out of
Their collective ass.
current mood:  cynical
current music: Someone Still Loves You Boris Yeltsin; Pangea
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| |
10:37 am - A Quickie
|
So the fact is that I waste more time on Facebook than here -- but it isjust that: largely wasted time. I know that FB has the ability to let me post my musings, write out my thoughts and dreams, and otherwise let the wider world in on the minutia of life, yet I don't tend to use it that way.
I like posting family pictures and videos to FB; I like using the status update as a micro-explanation of my day; I enjoy finding old acquaintances and keeping up with folks.
But I don't regard it as, or think I'd like using it as a blogging site. Perhaps if I had a CPTJOHNC FB, then it might be more usable that way. But for me, I prefer the flexibility and, to some extent, the 'anonymity' of LJ.
I think I need to ponder this more.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, August 6th, 2009
| |
1:31 pm - Odds and Ends
|
#1 -- you can hardly obtain any news right now without tripping over healthcare reform related information. Worse, you can't help but get well intentioned but politically motivated information regarding how good (or bad) the reform plans are. An interesting fact that I couldn't avoid noticing in one of these items: About $1000 of an average annual health insurance premium paid in the US goes to cover care for the uninsured( ... )
( Fashion note: )
( so-called Birthers and stolen elections )
( tea party disruptions of town hall meetings: )
Of course, in my view, anything which prevents the government from adding a layer of interference in my life is probably good. Especially if it prevents the expenditure of funds by said government. But I think I'd like to hear some real debate, not just people shouting at each other.
Last thing: I keep hearing health care reform which will provide coverage for 'most' americans -- I presume this 'most' does not mean those who might remain voluntarily outside the system... what is the point of reform which does not ensure that everyone can get coverage? If my tax dollars are to be involved, I either want no government interference, or I want coverage for everyone made available -- not another half-assed measure!
Sorry-- I'll hide in my hole again...
current mood: cranky
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, August 3rd, 2009
| |
6:12 pm - Cash for Clunkers
|
Happy Birthday buxmama
So, I was driving home today, taking advantage of my Prius' privilege of using HOV lanes with only one occupant, and listening to NPR. I felt quite progressive, as I listened to a number of stories on Cash for Clunkers. The final piece was critical of the program for what is, I believe, a legitimate but misplaced reason, in part. The issue raised, quite rightly, is that there is a 'carbon footprint' associated with building each new vehicle, and it takes between 18 months and 8 years to offset this footprint depending on the gain in fuel economy. I believe the 8 year mark is for a 2 MPG gain, as is permissible for replacement of a truck under the program. The 18 month scenario was for replacing a 20 MPG car with a 50 MPG car (which, it was noted, would not qualify for the program at all).
The subject of the interview referred to replacement of a 16 MPG 'clunker' with a 20 MPG 'clunker' (as 4 MPG is the minimum improvement for cars). I take issue with his characterization of the 20 MPG car as a 'clunker'. Now, I don't dispute his math, with regard to the gain in fuel economy to offset the the impact of production -- I'll assume he has done a fair study of the impact, including direct and indirect impacts. After all, the fuel savings in this example are less than 200 gallons per year. I do, however, take issue with his idea that the 10 year old plus car is really as 'benign' as he asserts: The fact is that cars' performance, in all categories, degrades over time. Engine efficiency, rolling efficiency, and most importantly, the incentive for the owner to perform proper maintenance. All of this adds up to make 10 year old and older cars much MORE of a hazard to the environment, highway safety, and the all important aesthetic component.
Yes, I know there are exceptions to this general principle - samuraigrrrl certainly appears to take fabulous care of her older fleet. But I posit that she is the exception. Most people with older cars tend to let them degrade well past their peak, or even their reasonable, efficiency point. While 10 years may not be the 'break point' for the true beater, it is certainly the entre' to beaterhood for many. I have no science to back me up, but I have plenty of anecdotal evidence -- both to support the losses of efficiency and to support the failure to maintain. Enough that I am confident that a real study would bear me out (and if someone wants to give me a grant for the purpose, I'm happy to design and complete such a study!).
As such, while I believe that cash for clunkers is less about improving efficiency and helping the environment, and more about helping some beleaguered industries, I believe it will, ultimately, do more than this expert calculated in helping the environment. In part, it is because I have a 1997 Mercury Grand Marquis (a qualifying vehicle with an alleged 18 MPG combined rating) -- I challenge anyone to drive the car under normal conditions and get better than about 14 MPG in mixed city and highway driving. Further, I know that this car has passed emissions testing by the skin of its teeth for the past 4-5 years. If you don't happen to live in a locality which has emissions testing requirements, the problem of the maintenance of older cars is probably worse than I assert -- after all, I live in a locality where every car younger than about 20 or 25 is required to pass emissions testing to ensure that the controls are functioning properly, and I still see plenty of cars spewing particulate and noxious fumes. ( yes, I know that 'smoke' may not indicate a true emissions control problem, but I find it hard to believe in most cases, esp. considering the smells. Note, of course, that there are some exceptions to the testing regimen such as if you spend $750 on repairs without managing to pass, you get a waiver, etc...)
Anyway, I may not support cash for clunkers 100% as I think there could have been more done with it, both in terms of getting the worst offenders off the road, and in terms of targeting the money where it was most sorely needed, but I do think the program is more environmentally conscious than this commentator allowed. Which is not to say I don't see room for improvement.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, July 29th, 2009
| |
2:23 pm - I think I get the attraction of Twitter
|
I was down in the Crystal City underground, getting something to drink, and I had an observation which I wanted to share... but by the time I got up to my desk, I lost the thought. Sure, I could do a mobile posting, and perhaps I'll do that sometime. but for now? I guess I'll just have to improve my aging memory.
On Giantism: Am I the only one who thinks people, and in particular women, are getting much taller? I am not a tall guy, but neither am I very short (I think) -- I am 5' 9", which was about average for adult americans when I was in my 20s. I notice, though, that women under 30 seem to be significantly taller than their older compadres. This has become extremely noticable as I spend more time in public places -- metro, underground, etc... -- There are few women over 30 who are taller than I am -- some, to be sure, but it is a small and noteworthy group. Under 30, though? It feels like half the women are as tall as I am! Are growth hormones in food really having that profound an impact?
I know some of it is illusion; younger women wear higher heels, on average. But even allowing for that, as best I can, it seems to be a rising trend.
I think younger men are also taller than a generation ago, but I don't think the difference is as profound.
Anyway, I wonder how much of the complaining from 'older' women about fashions and styles is exacerbated by this propensity to excessive height? Let's face it -- taller women can wear things that don't work on shorter folks... and visa versa.
Don't get me wrong -- I am not complaining -- I am merely noticing.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, July 28th, 2009
| |
12:43 am - Gargleblaster!
|
No, the subject isn't relevant.
Taking public transportation is, sometimes, an adventure. Most days, it is humdrum. Some days it is frustrating. Sometimes it is downright weird. Occasionally it is entertaining or humorous.
On the weird side: I had a women sit next to me and belch. For 10 minutes straight. Seriously. It was disquieting, to say the least. I've had my fair share of over-sized people sharing my seat. I'm not a small guy, so I can't complain, but I have to say, metro seats are not sized for two overgrown Americans.
Frustration was the day that the orange and blue lines were completely screwed up, and I had to wait for between 8 and 10 trains before squeezing on. A close second comes with the times I get on a train with no A/C.
Entertaining includes the various street artists who congregate around metro stations. At Crystal City there is a trio of singers -- they aren't bad. I think I'll try to get a short video clip of them to share here -- I'll tip them. Humorous generally involves conversations with people -- mostly strangers -- when we're packed tightly together. I had a really fun one with a young woman last week -- the humor is purely in the fact that we were talking solely to make our time squeezed against each other less awkward. And in part, because I am egotistical enough to think she was looking for my wedding ring... does this mean I still have it? Not that it really matters.
Oh, and note particularly to shorter women: Wearing loose necklines puts you at risk for being ogled by dirty old men. Serious.ly.
Job is good. Working conditions leave a bit to be desired, and anyone know how to load a flash player without admin privileges? It is seriously cramping me not to be able to do ANY flash applications. But at least I have internets and can be a little social.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
