Beacon Hill to see John Kerry's crib.

Whiling-away the time waiting by skipping coins fished out of the fountain...

We waited for them at the Christian Science Mother Church in Boston--They came up from NYC by bus...

Relatives from India: The woman is my mother-in-law's aunt. Also pictured are her husband and son and our three girls. 

Ahh, the perfect dinner from a man's perspective--Meat and potatoes washed down with a strong drink! Please note the complete absence of salad. See below for how such a dinner was possible... 

Not long ago my wife had a "girls night out" Here she is just before leaving the house. 

Screed alert!

Back before the election I wrote a commentary on Daniel Drezner’s website regarding what I thought of as the short-sightedness of GWB opponents. Dear Mr. Drezner, I can't help but think that critics of GWB's foreign policy tend to focus on minor setbacks and failures at the expense of the big picture: Before 9-11 it looked as if sanctions against the Iraqi regime could not be sustained indefinitely. Our French, Russian and Chinese "allies" were pushing to end them and "human rights" groups were assailing the hardship it caused the Iraqi people. After 9-11, GWB had the choice of appearing to the world as weak in the face of Islamic assault or the opposite and in the process getting rid of the expense and trouble of maintaining forever our air patrols of northern and southern no-fly zones. WMD or not, the cost of not acting would have been incalculable in terms of American prestige and safety. We should also remember the state of the economy by 9-11: We had a recession which started before GWB took office, the tech bubble burst, corporate malfeasance was finally being brought to light and of course there was the freshly made pile of rubble smoking in Manhattan. Where are we now? 5 quarters in a row of excellent average growth and very strong employment numbers. dbp Posted by David Pecchia, October 15, 2004 05:38 PM I thought that I was being clear: Looting at a museum may be a horrible thing, but compared with the liberation of nations containing more than 50 million people, rather insignificant. But still I got this kind of response to my letter… Note: I left out the first part of this letter as it was just a quote from my letter. First, don't forget all of the US companies that were pushing to end the sanctions. Anyway, the big picture is that Bush's record on national security is pretty weak. He let the bad guys go in Afghanistan. That's not a minor detail, that's a huge one. We had the opportunity to take bin Laden and much of the Al Qaeda leadership out over there, but Bush let them all get away. He took our special forces out and diverted them to Iraq BEFORE Congress had even started to talk about giving Bush authorization for war. He replaced them with Spanish-speaking anti-drug agents. Terrible failure. In Iraq, he rushed us in with no strategy to win the peace. He's managed it terribly. And by all reports, terrorist recruiting has gone through the roof as a result. That's making us less safe. These aren't minor details, they're huge. Posted by Zip, October 15, 2004 05:59 PM Let us dissect this bit by bit: First, don't forget all of the US companies that were pushing to end the sanctions. Okay, which US companies? And if there were some, so what? My point was that sanctions could not be sustained forever and that they brought hardship to Iraqi people. Is the correspondent trying to attack US corporations as immoral? Or is he trying to defend the position of nations like France and Russia? He let the bad guys go in Afghanistan. That's not a minor detail, that's a huge one. We had the opportunity to take bin Laden and much of the Al Qaeda leadership out over there, but Bush let them all get away. He took our special forces out and diverted them to Iraq BEFORE Congress had even started to talk about giving Bush authorization for war. He replaced them with Spanish-speaking anti-drug agents. Terrible failure. GWB deprived Al Qaeda the use of Afghanistan as a safe haven and base of operations. This action was opposed by the left in the USA who predicted that it would be a replay of Vietnam. The Christian Science Monitor has a good report of how Bin Laden got away: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html The story—which takes place after the operation, is dated March 4th 2002. According to Wikipedia, the USA invaded Iraq March 20th 2003. Is it just me? Or does it seem fanciful to state that we moved special forces from Afghanistan to Iraq more than a year before we invaded that country! Again, the big picture: Freed a whole country, denied use of said country to enemy—of course it is a total failure since some of the enemy got away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq In Iraq, he rushed us in with no strategy to win the peace. He's managed it terribly. And by all reports, terrorist recruiting has gone through the roof as a result. That's making us less safe. There is a lot of just mush here, but I will try and make something of it… Supposedly the war has been managed terribly. Well then, why didn’t all the bad things the left said would happen actually happen? · There were not 100’s of thousands of refugees · There was not massive oil well fires · Saddam did not use WMD on our troops—yes, yes the left likes to forget that even they believed in WMD before the war and used it as a reason to avoid war. · Baghdad was not Stalingrad and we did not loose the tens of thousands of troops predicted by the left. There are no firm numbers available on terrorist recruitment, but let us just concede for the sake of argument that recruitment is up. I don’t think I am alone in the bias that I would rather have Saudi, Jordanian and Syrian terrorists going to Iraq to be killed by our troops and killed by allied Iraqi troops, than coming here to kill us! Again, big picture: The only nation to openly defy us in our anti-terror campaign has been régime-changed by US Force. We can not count on ever being loved by other nations, but by-God we can make sure that we are feared! And there is some value in that.

Since I'm not a conspiracy theorist, these pictures are wasted on me.

The below satellite pictures are from maps.google.com. I was exploring the Washington DC area in anticipation of a trip there later in the Summer and I noticed some strange aspects to the sat images. Sometimes they are deliberately blurred or distorted. I can see the reasons for this in some cases, but others are just odd. I can see a whole hobby springing-up: Spot the blurred-out sections on Google satellite images. I found the Capitol first, then I looked to see about the White House and Pentagon (which is not distorted). I found the Observatory Circle by accident. I was just exploring routes into and out of DC. Note: You can click on any of the images and you will get a full screen, higher resolution image.

Here is an unblurry picture of the Vice President's Residence from the Vice President's website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/vpresidence.html 

Is this a crop circle in the middle of Washington DC? No. It is Observatory Circle and where the residence of the Vice President is. Why blurry? I think I can make a guess. Please note: For the above picture (and all the others on this site) you can get a bigger and more detailed picture by clicking on the small picture presented here.

Do you see something odd about the roofs of the White House and the bldgs to either side? I do. Notice how all the other structures have complicated roofs? Lots of air conditioners and vents and stuff like that. The White house looks strangely uniform. Here the subtrafuge is understandable. No need for anyone out there to see the Patriot battery on the roof of the West wing!

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