The resolution is fairly low here, but clearly the US Capitol grounds and some nearby bldgs are blurred. It is not as if it is hard to find nor unknown how it looks, so why the cloak and dagger? 

A good week for car accidents...

It was two hits and one very close call last week. On Tuesday I went into Billerica center for my lunch time jog. This was not one of my usual routes, but a coworker had seen a house on the internet and I thought I would check it out. I was running along the main road (Concord Road) and a car came out of a side street, stopped and then surged forward as I crossed the side road. The driver noticed me as he turned onto the main road and hit his brakes, but not before knocking me down. I had put out my hands in a reflex motion and so at the time I thought all my bruises would be from being flung down onto the pavement. The next day I discovered a large bruise on the outside of my left leg just below the knee. Since I had fallen mostly onto my right upper thigh, I suspect that the bumper of the car caused the bruise on my left leg. Most of the pain I felt the next day was self-inflicted: I had about 3 more miles left of my run and I think the adrenalin made me run faster than usual and so I was sore from that. I was furious when first hit but then the driver was so clearly concerned and so ready to make amends that I quickly cooled down. Also, I was really glad to be alive and thus feeling a bit generous. The Next accident was Friday the 13th of the same week: My wife's office is downsizing (just the rented space not staffing!) and so there was office furniture available for whomever wanted it. She got her parents to watch the kids that night and we would take the truck down for a load of file cabinets and so forth. We decided to stop for a bite to eat on the way home and in this case it would involve a left turn on a busy road. We came to the place, signaled and then stopped to wait for a break in the oncoming traffic. The car behind us stopped and then a few seconds later a large dodge pick-up did not stop. We heard the crash and even though our rear bumper was badly dented, we did not feel the crash. The Ford Taurus behind us was completely demolished (the driver and his passenger were unharmed). I guess there is something to be said for the safety which comes from driving 5,000 lbs of steel. The last incident did not cause even a scratch, yet it could have been the most fatal if the timing was just a little different. It was Sunday and I was bringing Surenna home from an overnight stay at her friend's house. We were on a side street approaching the main road. About 200 ft before the intersection an Isuzu Rodeo turned onto the sidestreet coming from the left side of the main street. He was going so fast that he swung all the way into our lane. Had we been a few seconds further along this would have been a head-on collision! We were in a little BMW 318ti and would have been going 15-20mph and the other guy was going at least 30mph. I think we would have been lucky to survive and would at the very least have been hospitalized and our car totaled. Quite an eventful week! It is fine to drive fast--I like to do this myself from time to time, but you have got to have enough judgment to do it without making widows and orphans.

Here is the little 8 year old responsible for the following instant messenging with her dad. 

Instant messaging with my 8 year old daughter

The following is a transcript of some instant messaging between me and my eight year old daughter. She spent the spring-break week with relatives in Pennsylvania and NJ. Note: Commentary will be in Green. Also, I have rearranged some of the order since new questions often come before a reply to a previous question.
Veena says: Hi daddy
Veena says: this is renny
Young Turk says: I figured that out.
Venna is the name of the aunt in NJ Surenna was staying with.

Young Turk says: Hi honey
About "Young Turk" the author's wife and I often change our display name in concert with whatever topic we happen to be 'on'. So, I had just purchased a bunch of Rod Stewart songs and I included (I don't know why!) Young Turks and Vaish gave me hell for it. Hence the display name. (Actually, I think my reasoning was that Young Turks in some ways is such a prototypical Rod Stewart song--even though it is not very good and he does have lots of good songs. Here is what I got that day. Maggie May $0.99 Q0002 People Get Ready $0.99 Q0002 Reason to Believe $0.99 Q0002 Rhythm of My Heart $0.99 Q0002 The First Cut Is the Deepest $0.99 Q0002 This Old Heart of Mine $0.99 Q0002 You're in My Heart $0.99 Q0002 Young Turks Veena says: i love you dadd Young Turk says: Love you too!
Young Turk says: How are you doing there with veenpachi?
Veena says: good i'm doing fine Young Turk says: I miss you.
Veena says: so are there tears in your eyes
Young Turk says: I only cry when there is nobody around to see me. Never at work. Silly.
Veena says: oh god!
Young Turk says: But, I do miss you even if I am not crying about it.
Veena says: iwas talking to mommy a while ago
Young Turk says: She is working from home today.
Young Turk says: Did she say anything interesting?
Veena says: no
Veena says: Mamuma is taking good care of me
Young Turk says: Okay, good.
Veena says: why did you say that/
Young Turk says: I am glad that Mamuma is taking good care of you.
Veena says: we are going to Red Loster for lunch then we are going to see a movie
Young Turk says: Must be hard having so much fun...
Veena says: good buy i love you
Young Turk says: Good bye. I love you too.
Veena says: call me
Young Turk says: Okay, after work I will give you a call. Veena says: buy Young Turk says: Bye. Veena says: hi daddy Young Turk says: Hi Surenna Young Turk says: I was busy with a coworker and didn't see your message. Veena says: oh thats ok Young Turk says: Are you all ready to come home? Veena says: not yet. Istill have to pack up a lot of stuff Young Turk says: You guys have the whole day to play before the drive home. Young Turk says: You can still do something fun. Veena says: ya we'r going to Young Turk says: What are you going to do today? Veena says: Ithink we are going to the park Young Turk says: Just the little playground close to their house? Veena says: i guess Veena says: thats fun for me Young Turk says: So, you don't have any kids to play with during the day though. Veena says: ok i gutsta go Young Turk says: okay, bye. Veena says: no Veena says: i went to the park for 20 minutes and then it started to rain Wild Turkey says: Oh, thats too bad! Wild Turkey says: Wild Turkey says: I just got back from running. The weather is beautiful here. specchia says: what are you talking about?i just got on the computer Wild Turkey says: i went to the park for 20 minutes and then it started to rain specchia says: no i did Wild Turkey says: I know Wild Turkey says: I was just reminding you of your earlier message. specchia says: oh you where just kidding specchia says: not Wild Turkey says: No specchia says: are you still at work? Wild Turkey says: Yes, I am at work untill 6:00 Wild Turkey says: It is nice here in Billerica. specchia says: you work in Billerica? Wild Turkey says: Yes specchia says: wo Wild Turkey says: Only about 4 miles from Mamuma and Aja's house. specchia says: when i travele home i get to go in pajamas because we are stoping at a rest urant Wild Turkey says: That doesn Wild Turkey says: oops Wild Turkey says: That doesn't make sense. If you are stopping at a restaurant, you should not wear pajamas. Wild Turkey says: Or you should say, "even though we are stopping at a restaurant, I still get to wear pajamas" specchia says: i ment not going in pjs Wild Turkey says: That would make more sense Wild Turkey says: okay specchia says: i made a mistake Wild Turkey says: Thats okay, you are just a little kid. specchia says: ok got to go bye Wild Turkey says: bye talktome says: daddy are you there? Wild Turkey says: On the phone now. talktome says: ok talktome says: off yet

Here Erik (Swiss) and me starting the Groton 2005 10 K road race. (He is in the olive-drab tee-shirt and shades) Erik is called Swiss because his last name (Marchese) is sometimes mispronounced mar-cheese-ee, hence swiss-cheese or just swiss. The actual pronounciation is mar-kay-zee. He is an old affy buddy and we get toghether from time to time. He is responsible for encouraging me to enter the Groton run the first time in 2003. 

This is how I finished this year (2005) 46th out of 100 for my age group (40-49) with a time of 49:30. I didn't run in 2004 because I was looking for a job at the time and paying to run a race seemed silly. 

This is how I looked in 2003 when I finished in 51:14. and 67th out of 117 in my age bracket 

McDonald’s Diary

It must have been as early as 2nd or 3rd grade when I would venture, along with older siblings and neighborhood kids to the local McDonald’s hamburger stand.

At the time (about 1970) there was no inside seating and you would order through a window. The ‘local’ place was about 5 miles from home and so we would take our bikes there on weekends or in the Summer time.

By today’s standards it seems crazy—I cannot imagine my eldest daughter, who is 8, walking or riding her bike to the closest Friendly’s, which is only about 2 miles from home. Our parents didn’t seem to mind or care where we were when we were out playing as long as we didn’t get into trouble.

In thinking of that age, I don’t exactly remember being hungry all the time but I do recall that an extra meal was always welcome and would never spoil my appetite for the next scheduled meal. We would save up our allowance money and buy as much McDonald’s food as we could afford. If I have any regrets now, it is that I didn’t eat more of it then. I was skin-and-bones and an extra burger and fries would have made no difference, except for possibly making me more healthy. Now of course, I can easily afford far more food than I could consume and I could stand to lose 15-20 lbs and so I eat far less than my stomach will hold.

I miss that golden era when I was young enough to eat a lot and yet old enough to afford as much as I wanted. In 7th and 8th grade I had the money from a paper route and those are the prime big-eating years. I would normally have a Big Mac, a Quarter Pounder (with cheese), large fries and a milk shake. I would be full after all of this and it felt good!

Our parent’s would take us to McDonald’s from time to time—quite often after Sunday’s late morning mass. This was appreciated but not as good as when we kids went on our own. First, we had to wait until we were home before we could eat, instead of eating it hot right there at one of the picnic tables. Second, while my parents ordered enough food for us, they by no means ordered as much as we would have liked to eat!

All three of our daughters love to go to McDonald’s yet they hardly ever eat heartily and can best be described as ‘svelte’. Yet, they do eat enough to satisfy themselves and seem to enjoy it. They probably most like to go due to the play structure and Happy Meal toys that they get. It really is a good deal—they have fun, get fed and have something they can keep and the cost is very little.

Now, what do I think of Morgan Spurlock and his movie Super Size Me? Well, I don’t like to spend scarce time and money on anti-corporate agitprop. First of all, who in their right mind would think that an all-McDonald’s diet would be good for you? Why waste a perfectly good movie proving a moot point? Hey, if you think the food is gross or unhealthy, fine: Don’t eat there then! Why should you care if others don’t share your opinion? Please do not tell me that my health is your concern: I will not grant any rhetorical paving-stones for your Road to Serfdom project. dbp

ps I don't remember what inspired this posting, but about a week later I came across a blog with a MacDonald's posting so I just pasted it into the comments section. The blog is "A Small Victory" which I just stumbled across. At least I know what an Instalanche is though.

A Quick Thought On The Bankruptcy Bill...

I usually try an avoid wonkishness on this blog, but I haven't heard this line of reasoning on the just-passed bankruptcy bill anywhere else. When banks offer to loan money, whether it is a mortgage or a credit card balance, the interest rate they offer factors in all of their costs: They have to pay interest on the money, they have to make a profit, cover their operating costs and account for some of the money never being re-paid. The interest rates for loans that are currently outstanding are based on the risk associated with bankruptcy law prior to the enactment of the new law. The changes in the law will make it harder for individuals to avoid repayment through bankruptcy. As a result of this, one can expect that banks will make slightly more profit on current outstanding loans, since the rules have shifted in their favor. This would seem to be a classic case of what economists call Rent Seeking. In the long-run all of us who will never declare bankruptcy should gain, because the market rate for loans should fall slightly. Remember, banks have to pad the margins on all loans to make up for the small percentage of dead-beats who fail to re-pay their loans. The new law will make things tougher on those who would escape debt through bankruptcy. I have a hard time feeling sorry for these folks since they are only being made to pay back what they have borrowed. dbp

Letter to Ann Althouse...

I Write so seldom that I have decided to post whatever I have got: Here is a comment I sent to popular blogress Ann Althouse in response to her call for good clear reasons why 'personal accounts' will help make the Social Security system more solvent:

Hi Ann, Regarding explanations for why personal accounts will help the long-term solvency of Social Security: For the past few years, I have been thinking about the Social Security Trust Fund and reading about it, but have never heard a take on it like the one I have. I know, I know! Now comes the bizarre fringy ‘take’ on it. The Trust Fund is supposedly for the purpose of making up funds needed for beneficiaries once outlays begin to exceed the money coming into the system. (This is expected to begin in about 9 years) The problem is that the trust fund doesn’t contain any assets, only obligations. Personal accounts divert money from the trust fund; but for each dollar diverted, a dollar of future liability is removed. This will not help the overall financial situation if nothing else changes because, each dollar diverted from the trust fund will be added to the deficit. Currently, the federal deficit is calculated by subtracting the surplus of Social Security funds from the actual deficit, thus hiding the true state of deficit spending. It is hoped that by ‘unmasking’ the true deficit, this will cause downward pressure on government spending. If the government can reduce its debt load, then the future ability to add debt will be increased. I hope this is a clear answer. I am not a politician, so I at least try to write clearly! Best regards, David

Note: I did some editing on the letter to Prof Althouse in Hotmail, so what I sent her is a bit different from what is presented here.

Let Her Die ?

On the way home from work Friday, I was listening to NPR as usual and there was a story about Terri Schiavo. Complete details can be found by linking to the story published by The Guardian above, but in brief:

Mrs. Schiavo has been in what is called "A Persistent Vegetative State" for more than a decade following a heart attack. Her husband Michael has been spending much of that time trying through legal means to have her feeding tube removed, so that she will die of dehydration. Mr. Schiavo's main opponent in his legal quest has been the family of Mrs. Schiavo. Mr. Schiavo, while still married to Terri, has in the past several years been living with another woman. This unmarried pair has produced a couple of children and will surely benefit from the life insurance which will come to them once Terri Schiavo dies.

Most marriage vows include something to the effect that one must remain faithful through sickness or health until separated by death. Of course divorce law in every state does allow a marriage to be dissolved for any (or no) reason, so Michael could have divorced his wife long ago. Terri's parents have made it clear that they would be happy to take responsibility for her care, so he could leave the marriage with a fairly clean conscience. In any case, Michael's obvious lack of faithfulness indicates that he has in fact moved on with his life. He, like many who have an ethical challenge put before them, has been found wanting: He would like to keep the power of life and death over his wife while in any but the legal sense he has long ago left his marriage. Let Her Die ? The thing which caught my interest in the newscast was when the news reader spoke of a legal victory by Michael Schiavo as having the result the Terri Schiavo would be allowed to die. There are those who argue that all language contains bias, maybe so, maybe so, but surely it is possible for there to be degrees of bias. For instance, I think a simple recitation of the facts would be fairly neutral: Here is my attempt: If Michael Schiavo wins his legal case, the result will be that the feeding tube which keeps Terri Schiavo fed and hydrated will be removed and she will die. What are the assumptions being made by the NPR reporter? When the word "allow" is used in a case like this, what it normally means is that a course of action desired by some actor will not be prevented. So the assumption here is that Terri Schiavo wants to die. She in fact has no choice: She will continue to live if she is fed and she will surely die if she is not fed. A second meaning of allow does not rely on desire, but is more like what we think of as nature. For instance, if I pull the drain plug out of a sink, this will allow water to run down the drain. In this sense, the NPR reporter is on firmer ground—there is nothing natural about a feeding tube, nor most of medical care for that matter. However, starving a baby or invalid who cannot feed them selves is not okay and would usually result in charges being filed. Most people think of machines which perform some physical function when they say things like "I don't want to be kept alive by a machine" etc. So, even here the ground gives way for our NPR reporter. I think it is safe to say that our NPR reporter has given away who's side he is on in this legal case as have I. dbp Update: An excelent view... Whose life is it to end? By George P. Bush Read it all...

American society is about to enter dangerous territory, in which the slow-motion killing of a woman by her faithless husband will have been sanctioned by the court. After Terri's death, where will we draw the line between one's right to privacy and another's right to life? Are our legislatures to have no say in the matter? It is inconvenient to Michael Schiavo and to the Florida courts that Terri Schiavo continues to live and that her parents won't relent and let her die of thirst and starvation. If Mr. Schiavo prevails, then every person whose life is considered of negligible quality by a court or a legal guardian could be condemned. There is more at stake here than the fate of one solitary woman. After this Friday, it becomes possible that, in this country, if the unwanted and the weak are simply too burdensome to us as individuals, that the right to rid ourselves of inconvenient lives will be our courts' guiding principle.

Here is a further update from The Corner where the coverage has been constant.

The time of year for this to be happening is too coincidental for my taste. A novelist would have Terri die on Friday the 25th (Good Friday) and have her spirit appear to her husband, or perhaps to all of us on Easter Sunday. Will she settle the issue and tell us if we did good or evil? Maybe she will just smile down upon us, reproachfully.

dbp

AS WE PASS 100 HOURS OF STARVATION AND DEHYDRATION ... [Andy McCarthy]

...something that wouldn't be done to an animal and couldn't be done to the worst convicted murderer." But then it actually happens ... slowly. You're powerless to stop it, and ... you find your life goes on.

There are kids and jobs and triumphs and tragedies and everyday just-getting-by. An atrocity becomes yet another awful thing going on in the world. After a day, or maybe two, of initial flabbergast, we're talking again about social security reform, China, North Korea, Hezbollah, etc. A woman's snail-like, gradual torture goes from savagery to just one of those sad facts of life.

As is the case with other depravities once believed unthinkable, it coarsens us. We slowly, and however reluctantly, accept it. We accept it. The New York Times no doubt soon "progresses" from something like "terminating life by starvation," to "the dignity of death by starvation," to "the medical procedure that opponents refer to as starvation." And so the culture of life slides a little more. The culture of death gains a firmer foothold.

Of course, the physical needs of the body are not limited to food and water. There is also air. But no judge, even in Florida, would ever have had the nerve in Terri's case to permit "the medical procedure that opponents refer to as asphyxiation." Too crude. Too quick. Too obviously murder of a vulnerable innocent. Brazen, instant savagery might wake us from our slumber. For the culture of death, better that we sleep. Posted at 10:47 PM

A whole row of gates 

Park Benches 

Here are some more pictures of "The Gates" A whole row of them, gate color shining onto park benches and gate refections off of the Met. 

"The Gates" In Central Park NYC

I am not even sure why I took this picture, but on closer inspection I am glad I did. --At the top of the picture one can see the skyline: There are interesting details if you zoom in. You can see the time and temperature when the picture was taken. There are interesting details in the building which is going up on the right hand side: Are the redish orange sheets in the building meant to evoke The Gates? At a distance from any of the gates, all of us in the group agree that what is evoked is road work rather than art. I don't know about you, but I get the opposite feeling from approaching road work as I do from art. Art makes me feel calm and serene while road work sets my teeth on edge. --In the middle of the shot, you see people going about their day among the gates. If you zoom in, lots of details come into view. Do you see the lady with a baby stroller? --In the foreground, here are a man and a woman. Is she giving him something? Maybe he is buying drugs and she is his pusher! Or maybe they are a couple and she is handing him back his gloves now that he is done taking (almost) the same picture as I took. I didn't notice these two when I took the picture, I was looking at the new building.

There are three levels to this picture. 

We walked the park from the SouthWest corner (Columbus Circle) to the Met and then back diagonaly to the NorthWest corner. It had been a while since we left NJ so seemed like a good time to check up on how the grandparents and aunt were doing with our girls. 

Lots of people taking-in the gates wore a bit of orange clothing. Perhaps it was a way of being part of the art on display. I suppose that I would have worn something orange too, except that my only orange thing is a pair of gardening gloves I wear while jogging. 

The BBC and Moral Stupidity

Yesterday I was listening to NPR on my drive home and heard an interview by Melissa Block of the BBC's Frances Harrison about the reaction in Tehran to statements made by Secretary Rice. One of the things Rice had mentioned was that the human rights record of the Iranian regime was abysmal. Ms Block then asked Ms. Harrison about the Iranian response. Ms. Harrison may have answered this way due to not having heard any response yet from the Iranians, but I am speculating here. The point is that she speculated herself on what the general response might be. She replied to the question by saying that she thought the general response would be: Who is the United States to criticize us? Look at their abuses at Abu Ghraib, or Guantanimo etc. Now, this is fine as far as it goes since she is only speculating on what the Iranians would say. She should have followed up though by pointing out how ridiculous their saying such a thing would be. Why should she have followed up with such a disclaimer? Two reasons: One, a reporter should point out when an argument is made which is clearly nonsensical. Two, such a statement as she made is in fact, clearly nonsensical. I fully admit and apologize to my readers here who find all of this rather obvious, but my point is that a veteran reportrix from the BBC doesn't find it so. Let us lay it out very simply: Abuses were committed at Abu Ghraib. These abuses were committed by criminals who have in due course been prosecuted. Here is how The Scotsman put it:

A SOLDIER convicted in connection with the Iraqi abuse court martial was described at the trial yesterday as "a bit of a nutter" who loved violence so much that he was ordered to undergo psychiatric counseling.

I have heard of no abuses at Guantanimo Bay, but have full faith that if crimes come to light they will be similarly pursued. Now let us compare the case of Iran with a couple of cases: First, the case of Atefeh Rajabi who was acting about like an average American teen. as described by the Women's Freedom Forum

A 16 year old girl hanged in public in the city center of Neka, North of Tehran. The teenage victim had no access to a lawyer at any stage. In court, she told the religious judge that he should punish those who force women into adultery, not the victims

Second, the case of Kaveh Habibi-Nejad from Indymedia.

14-year-old boy ‘flogged to death’ in Iran

Iran Focus News 26 Nov 2004 00:22 GMT

Another child allowed to be 'punished' to death.

14-year-old boy ‘flogged to death’ in Iran: Thursday 25 Nov 2004 Tehran - New information has come to light over the sudden death of a 14-year-old schoolboy in western Iran, who died after being flogged for “eating in public” during the holy Islamic month of Ramadan. Kaveh Habibi-Nejad died Nov. 12 and was buried in the cemetery of the Kurdish city of Sanadaj on Nov. 13, according to his death certificate.

Both of these outrages are typical in Iran. Also typical is that they were done by the authorities. The perpetrators of these acts are not considered criminals by the government of Iran, they are in fact part of the government of Iran. What kind of moral idiot compares the criminals of one country with the officials of another and looks for equivalence between the two? The BBC's Frances Harrison, for one. Who Else? I don't think it would be hard to find more. dbp

The consequences of being vague...

I should say right from the start that this post will look at a strategy employed by both Senator Kerry and Saddam Hussein and is no attempt to equate their political philosophies. Both men attempted to achieve an end by being vague about some central question: Hussein wanted the USA and other groups to think he had WMD. He wanted at the same time to give no irrefutable evidence of it. The idea would be that without hard evidence, we would be prevented from attacking him. At the same time, the feeling that he had these weapons would be a deterrent to an attack. Instead, what happened is that we figured that if he was acting like he was hiding something then he probably was hiding something. After 9/11 we were in no mood to play 'footsie' with one of the only world leaders to applaud the terrorist attack on us. I have little doubt that if Hussein's regime had cooperated fully with inspectors, he would be hanging out in one of his palaces right now. In the case of John Kerry, I don't know if he would have done any better with clarity: Senator Kerry wanted moderate and conservative swing voters to think that he would continue the effort in Iraq--just do things in a smarter and better way. At the same time, he wanted the hard-core 'bushitler' crowd to think that he would pull a Zapatero. He really had to do things this way. If he went hard left, he would unify them and go down to McGovern-like defeat. If he openly proposed the 'stay the course, only smarter' path (to the point where everybody believed him) then the hard left would go heavy for Nader and again, McGovernville. In any case, it was a fairly close election--it came down to a little more than 100,000 votes in a fairly large state. Before the advent of blogs, Kerry probably could have carried it off. The major networks and newspapers no longer have a monopoly on what people hear about. Without blogs, the SwiftVets would have never been heard of. By the same token, the Texas ANG documents would not (until safely after the election) have been revealed as the obvious fakes they were. There are no earth-shattering lessons here: Just that when you want one set of people to believe A and another to believe B, it might not work out as planned. dbp