It's "tough row to hoe" - an idiom from farming times.
It's NOT "tough road to hold"
"tough road to toe"
or any other such ridiculous variation.
These may be eggcorns, but they ain't the correct idiom.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Constitution has been suspended. We're at war, don't you know
While the linked article reads as a touch hysterical, and a bit condescending (use of the word 'gummint'), it does raise an extraordinarily important point that our media isn't reinforcing, and our citizens just don't want to cope with.
I'll say it again. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have been suspended by the Bush Administration.
Since we are 'at war' - a ridiculous untruth which should not be allowed to stand - any person, including US citizens (as Mr. Padilla was) can be jailed without charges for an indefinite period. The only requirement is that 'the Administration' label them as an enemy combatant - no actual evidence is necessary. Oh, and then you can be tortured...
If you slept through your Government classes in school, this is kinda serious folks.
I'll say it again. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have been suspended by the Bush Administration.
Since we are 'at war' - a ridiculous untruth which should not be allowed to stand - any person, including US citizens (as Mr. Padilla was) can be jailed without charges for an indefinite period. The only requirement is that 'the Administration' label them as an enemy combatant - no actual evidence is necessary. Oh, and then you can be tortured...
If you slept through your Government classes in school, this is kinda serious folks.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Restaurant review - Kingy's Pizza Pub - Canal Winchester, OH
So I went to hang out with some friends on Saturday night. Food and drink were the plan for the evening, and a good time was had by most (not accounting for hangovers on Sunday morning).
Coming in, I was expecting bar-with-food quality fare, which is to say, barely adequate and overpriced. What I got instead was a pleasant surprise. Appetizer-wise, the pretzel bites were plentiful and well-cooked. The mustard listed on the menu didn't arrive, but I'm not a mustard on pretzels guy anyway. The cheese sauce for dipping was tasty. The fried pickles were listed as 'Spicy' pickles on the menu, and while I didn't get 'spicy', I did get a good portion of fried pickles that were a good example of this unusual appetizer. The biggest pleasant surprise was the pepperoni pizza. It's of the thin/crispy crust variety, which was properly cooked. The cheese and pepperoni were standard but flavorful. Where the pizza distinguished itself was the sauce. A solid tomato base, but with some sweetness and spice to differentiate it from basic canned sauce really rounded the whole pie into a taste treat.
Rating (out of 10) - 7 very good
Coming in, I was expecting bar-with-food quality fare, which is to say, barely adequate and overpriced. What I got instead was a pleasant surprise. Appetizer-wise, the pretzel bites were plentiful and well-cooked. The mustard listed on the menu didn't arrive, but I'm not a mustard on pretzels guy anyway. The cheese sauce for dipping was tasty. The fried pickles were listed as 'Spicy' pickles on the menu, and while I didn't get 'spicy', I did get a good portion of fried pickles that were a good example of this unusual appetizer. The biggest pleasant surprise was the pepperoni pizza. It's of the thin/crispy crust variety, which was properly cooked. The cheese and pepperoni were standard but flavorful. Where the pizza distinguished itself was the sauce. A solid tomato base, but with some sweetness and spice to differentiate it from basic canned sauce really rounded the whole pie into a taste treat.
Rating (out of 10) - 7 very good
Worried about the risks of government databases? Despite failures already, our government isn't
Just as a secret that more than one person knows is no secret, a network that has more than one access point is not secure. The problem isn't encryption, or anything tecnological, it's PEOPLE. We know this to be true - "social engineering" has been the source of many publicized data breaches, and I expect, many, many more UNpublicized ones.
Jon Stokes from ars.technica has an outstanding take on this, and just how twisted around people get when they think about data, privacy and security. From the article, "privacy and security are a zero-sum game." Think about that viewpoint for a minute, this person wants you to believe that the more private your data is, the LESS secure you are. That stupidity got published in the freaking New Yorker. I can only hope that the editorial staff was durnk. The article also discusses a specific "breach" in the even-limited systems that existed in the early 2000s, and how one criminal with access can pervert the system.
So back to the point. For massive databases to be useful to 'security' purposes, many people need to have access. Let's hypothesize that 0.1% of people (that's 1 in 1,000) would do something bad with this data. Doesn't sound too bad, right, only 1 in 1,000, not worried about that? I'm a trusting soul, but, please, I'd figure at least 20,000 access points. And hey, if 20 nefarious people have access to limited data, as in the linked article, it's a problem. Give them access to incredibly large amounts of data, and it's a disaster waiting to happen.
Knowledge is, and will always be, power, and concentrating knowledge in a designed-to-be-accessed-by-many system just scares the living snot out of me.
Jon Stokes from ars.technica has an outstanding take on this, and just how twisted around people get when they think about data, privacy and security. From the article, "privacy and security are a zero-sum game." Think about that viewpoint for a minute, this person wants you to believe that the more private your data is, the LESS secure you are. That stupidity got published in the freaking New Yorker. I can only hope that the editorial staff was durnk. The article also discusses a specific "breach" in the even-limited systems that existed in the early 2000s, and how one criminal with access can pervert the system.
So back to the point. For massive databases to be useful to 'security' purposes, many people need to have access. Let's hypothesize that 0.1% of people (that's 1 in 1,000) would do something bad with this data. Doesn't sound too bad, right, only 1 in 1,000, not worried about that? I'm a trusting soul, but, please, I'd figure at least 20,000 access points. And hey, if 20 nefarious people have access to limited data, as in the linked article, it's a problem. Give them access to incredibly large amounts of data, and it's a disaster waiting to happen.
Knowledge is, and will always be, power, and concentrating knowledge in a designed-to-be-accessed-by-many system just scares the living snot out of me.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
No longer content to just wait it out OR Bring back the rule of law
I think I'm like a lot of Americans in this way: I've been bludgeoned into apathy about our current Administration by the shrieking from both sides, and by the miserable failure of a Democrat-'led' Congress to make meaningful change.
No more.
I'll endure the criticism of those who say I'm exaggerating the problems. I'll even tolerate the fools who say we're 'at war' and I'm giving comfort to the enemy. I say that the enemy, to semi-mis-quote Pogo, is us. We've allowed our the standards to which we hold our government to be lowered, and lowered, and lowered, until we simply don't notice the atrocities being perpetrated in the name of our country.
Well, I've noticed, and hopefully you will too.
The crimes are clear:
Disregard for the laws of the land abound.
Evidence of disregard for the law will just be (unlawfully) destroyed.
Those guilty of crimes as serious as mass-murder are shielded by those we've elected to uphold the laws of the land.
Judges claim that those mistreated by us aren't people.
Maybe that last one is at the heart of this. I can now look at Cheney and Bush and their gaggle of yes-men, and see that they believe this. They are capable of looking at an individual and saying, "you are not my equal, because you are poor, or born elsewhere, or just perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time, and therefore, you are not a person and have no rights whatsoever, and if I choose to shoot you down in the street, I will not be punished for it."
I can't.
For us to able to claim, as we once could, that this was a proud nation that respected every individual, and that everyone was entitled to equal protection under the law, we can't just wait for the hourglass to run out on this corrupt Administration.
Support this legislation. Write, call, or email your elected officials. Tell them cowardice is not acceptable, and that you'll see past the lies they'll be labeled with, like "weak on security" and vote for them again if they will do their part.
This must remain a government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. Not a government FOR the government.
No more.
I'll endure the criticism of those who say I'm exaggerating the problems. I'll even tolerate the fools who say we're 'at war' and I'm giving comfort to the enemy. I say that the enemy, to semi-mis-quote Pogo, is us. We've allowed our the standards to which we hold our government to be lowered, and lowered, and lowered, until we simply don't notice the atrocities being perpetrated in the name of our country.
Well, I've noticed, and hopefully you will too.
The crimes are clear:
Disregard for the laws of the land abound.
Evidence of disregard for the law will just be (unlawfully) destroyed.
Those guilty of crimes as serious as mass-murder are shielded by those we've elected to uphold the laws of the land.
Judges claim that those mistreated by us aren't people.
Maybe that last one is at the heart of this. I can now look at Cheney and Bush and their gaggle of yes-men, and see that they believe this. They are capable of looking at an individual and saying, "you are not my equal, because you are poor, or born elsewhere, or just perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time, and therefore, you are not a person and have no rights whatsoever, and if I choose to shoot you down in the street, I will not be punished for it."
I can't.
For us to able to claim, as we once could, that this was a proud nation that respected every individual, and that everyone was entitled to equal protection under the law, we can't just wait for the hourglass to run out on this corrupt Administration.
Support this legislation. Write, call, or email your elected officials. Tell them cowardice is not acceptable, and that you'll see past the lies they'll be labeled with, like "weak on security" and vote for them again if they will do their part.
This must remain a government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. Not a government FOR the government.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
New Tax Legislation
Smart Money has a good summary of recent tax legislation changes for all of our 2007 tax returns.
Some will be affected by the temporary un-stupiding of the AMT, a financial bomb waiting to hit the government, but one which they refuse to permanently fix, because it would require raising other taxes to make up for the lost revenue.
The tax change that really started me scratching my head though, was this:
"Cancellation of debt (COD) income, which occurs when a lender lets you off the hook for all or part of the money you owe, is taxable unless a specific exclusion makes it tax-free. The Mortgage Relief Act retroactively creates a new exclusion for qualifying cancellations of home mortgage debt in 2007 through 2009. Under the exclusion, a homeowner can have up to $2 million of federal-income-tax-free COD income from "qualified principal residence indebtedness," which means debt that was used to acquire, build or improve your principal residence and that is secured by that residence."
To summarize - if your mortgage lender forgives your debt, up to $2 million, you aren't immediately taxed on it.
I'm puzzled. I thought the mortgage crisis was driven primarily by poor-credit individuals who didn't understand the risks of adjustable mortgages well enough. When I think of poor-credit, and lack of financial sophistication, I don't think of $2 million in debt. Though I don't agree with my tax dollars going to someone who was trying to buy a small house for his family, and got in over his head, I'm COMPLETELY AND ANGRILY opposed to my tax dollars going to someone who bought a $1.5 million condo in Miami during the real estate boom, and is now stuck because it's only worth $1.1 million. Tax charity for those who should know better is just a flagrant abuse of power.
It's an election year people! Write, email, or call your elected officials and tell them you've had enough of the middle class funding the rich.
Some will be affected by the temporary un-stupiding of the AMT, a financial bomb waiting to hit the government, but one which they refuse to permanently fix, because it would require raising other taxes to make up for the lost revenue.
The tax change that really started me scratching my head though, was this:
"Cancellation of debt (COD) income, which occurs when a lender lets you off the hook for all or part of the money you owe, is taxable unless a specific exclusion makes it tax-free. The Mortgage Relief Act retroactively creates a new exclusion for qualifying cancellations of home mortgage debt in 2007 through 2009. Under the exclusion, a homeowner can have up to $2 million of federal-income-tax-free COD income from "qualified principal residence indebtedness," which means debt that was used to acquire, build or improve your principal residence and that is secured by that residence."
To summarize - if your mortgage lender forgives your debt, up to $2 million, you aren't immediately taxed on it.
I'm puzzled. I thought the mortgage crisis was driven primarily by poor-credit individuals who didn't understand the risks of adjustable mortgages well enough. When I think of poor-credit, and lack of financial sophistication, I don't think of $2 million in debt. Though I don't agree with my tax dollars going to someone who was trying to buy a small house for his family, and got in over his head, I'm COMPLETELY AND ANGRILY opposed to my tax dollars going to someone who bought a $1.5 million condo in Miami during the real estate boom, and is now stuck because it's only worth $1.1 million. Tax charity for those who should know better is just a flagrant abuse of power.
It's an election year people! Write, email, or call your elected officials and tell them you've had enough of the middle class funding the rich.
Friday, January 11, 2008
I may cry now
I know I shouldn't have expected anything better, but this still makes me very sad.
"Jacobs Field, the home of the Indians since 1994, will now be called Progressive Field."
"Jacobs Field, the home of the Indians since 1994, will now be called Progressive Field."
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Rewrite necessary
No, this is not a comment on the quality of this blog.
This is an open plea to the rules committees of the major pro (and some college) sports to EITHER direct their referees to enforce their respective rules as written, OR to change them to reflect actual intent.
The way things are currently done feel like selective enforcement, and give observers of these sports opportunities to think that more is wrong is these sprots than perhaps actually is.
My pleas:
NFL and NCAA Football - holding - if another announcer says, "well, you can call holding on any play" and league officials don't understand why players, teams and viewers get frustrated with referees, then they lack some basic understanding of psychology and cause-and-effect.
NBA - travelling - yes, Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player. No, his athletic ability did not justify completely ignoring a rule.
MLB - batter makes no attmpt to avoid hit by pitch (see 6.08b(2)) - Sorry Craig Biggio, sticking your elbow into a fastball doesn't make you a hero, and it was never meant to award you first base. Don't get me started on Bonds' armor.
Drop your favorite peeves in the Comments section.
This is an open plea to the rules committees of the major pro (and some college) sports to EITHER direct their referees to enforce their respective rules as written, OR to change them to reflect actual intent.
The way things are currently done feel like selective enforcement, and give observers of these sports opportunities to think that more is wrong is these sprots than perhaps actually is.
My pleas:
NFL and NCAA Football - holding - if another announcer says, "well, you can call holding on any play" and league officials don't understand why players, teams and viewers get frustrated with referees, then they lack some basic understanding of psychology and cause-and-effect.
NBA - travelling - yes, Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player. No, his athletic ability did not justify completely ignoring a rule.
MLB - batter makes no attmpt to avoid hit by pitch (see 6.08b(2)) - Sorry Craig Biggio, sticking your elbow into a fastball doesn't make you a hero, and it was never meant to award you first base. Don't get me started on Bonds' armor.
Drop your favorite peeves in the Comments section.
My current heresies
Subversive thoughts for the day:
If you can't understand the risks of an adjustable rate mortgage, you aren't sufficiently financially savvy to own a home.
A Congress with sufficient time to chat with baseball players (twice!) about what they've injected, but without sufficient will to make any meaningful legislation, should probably be universally fired and replaced with people more interested in helping the country than in meeting athletes.
Presidential candidates should actually have positions on issues.
People who are paid to analyse candidates should talk about those positions, not about candidates' clothing, spouses or 'presense'. Those who talk about these other items should be treated like gossip columnists, and treated with the requisite respect.
Does Al Sharpton DO anything? Or is he just professionally offended?
If you can't understand the risks of an adjustable rate mortgage, you aren't sufficiently financially savvy to own a home.
A Congress with sufficient time to chat with baseball players (twice!) about what they've injected, but without sufficient will to make any meaningful legislation, should probably be universally fired and replaced with people more interested in helping the country than in meeting athletes.
Presidential candidates should actually have positions on issues.
People who are paid to analyse candidates should talk about those positions, not about candidates' clothing, spouses or 'presense'. Those who talk about these other items should be treated like gossip columnists, and treated with the requisite respect.
Does Al Sharpton DO anything? Or is he just professionally offended?
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Book review - Foundation's Fear
Just finished Foundation's Fear by Gregory Benford (Amazon link). It got terrible reviews on Amazon for not being an Isaac Asimov novel. Well, it isn't, and it's not as good as an Asimov Foundation novel, but that's a lot like saying someone's not as good a pitcher as Greg Maddux. True, but true of most things in it's class. It's a lot more experimental than Asimov, and about a thousand times more theoretical, and does leave out a couple items from the canon of the Asimov Foundation books. It's not a great book, but it's not a bad one either. Just don't buy it expecting the great Dr. Asimov's voice, spoken by another.
Score - 5 out of 10. Points docked for ignoring canon, and too much Voltaire/Joan (though not for having them in there).
I've started Blaze, by Stephen King/Richard Bachman (edited by King after being unpublished as a Bachman novel)(Amazon link). I confess, I love Stephen King books. I've read nearly all of them from cover-to-cover, several multiple times. How he brings readers in to the worlds he creates is a talent I could only dream of. This isn't (at least not yet) a horror story, but the "bad guys" were never, IMHO, King's talent anyway. The stories are about the protagonists, and this story's is as captivating as many good King heroes. I'm certainly enjoying it so far.
Score - 5 out of 10. Points docked for ignoring canon, and too much Voltaire/Joan (though not for having them in there).
I've started Blaze, by Stephen King/Richard Bachman (edited by King after being unpublished as a Bachman novel)(Amazon link). I confess, I love Stephen King books. I've read nearly all of them from cover-to-cover, several multiple times. How he brings readers in to the worlds he creates is a talent I could only dream of. This isn't (at least not yet) a horror story, but the "bad guys" were never, IMHO, King's talent anyway. The stories are about the protagonists, and this story's is as captivating as many good King heroes. I'm certainly enjoying it so far.
Another way to look at college football schedules
A lot of rather passionate posturing has gone on in the national media, particularly from those who support one of the teams that's NOT in the BCS National Championship Game (or whatever the heck we're supposed to call the Jan.7 OSU-LSU tilt), about Ohio State's weak schedule this year. They use various disparagements about the strength of the schedule to try to sell a case that instead of Ohio State, some other team (often USC, or Georgia, or Kansas) should be competing for the national title. Beano Cook (link) makes this point in his signaturely annoying way in a recent ESPN chat (insider login may be required, I can't keep up with ESPN's rules). But, apart from giving the sTHs (that's 'sports Talking Heads') something to blather on about instead of showing sports, I can't quite figure this whole tempest of indignation out.
Poof! You've been made the Athletic Director of a BCS conference school, with a good football program. What's your job? Is it to satisfy a group of sTHs? I think it's probably to maximize the success and revenue of your athletic teams. And in major college football, what's the best way to do this? It's to get into a BCS bowl game. How do you get into a BCS Bowl game? You win your games. It's not complicated. Go undefeated in a major conference (Hawaii, you may have hurt the smaller conferences a bit with your AWFUL showing), and you're quite likely in the National Championship, and even one loss will likely still put you in a Jan 1 or later bowl game. And your school (you're the Athletic Director, remember?) gets a LOT of dollars, and a lot of press, which helps recruiting, which helps you do well again next year, and the virtuous cycle continues. For those of you who like math, think of it this way. Assume you've got a 99% chance of beating a patsy on your schedule (the odd Appalachian State thing WILL happen), and a 60% chance of beating a "quality" opponent. With four non-conference games to schedule, what are your chances of sweeping four patsies? 96%. How about four "quality" opponents? 13% See the difference? Especially when the payoff is in the millions for a big bowl appearance? Even splitting the difference, and putting two "quality" opponents on the schedule drops your chances of being 4-0 to 35%.
So, unless it's more important to an AD that Mark May and Beano Cook think he's putting good enough opponents on the schedule than that his program brings in revenue, and trophies, and press, and improved recruiting rep, I don't see why there's not a lineup at the door of all of the various directional Michigan/Kentucky/Illinois schools come scheduling times. The games may be no fun to watch, or commentate on, but they do right by the schools, and their athletic departments. And if you're thinking, "it shouldn't be about the money" then you really haven't been paying attention to this whole BCS thing.
Peace.
Poof! You've been made the Athletic Director of a BCS conference school, with a good football program. What's your job? Is it to satisfy a group of sTHs? I think it's probably to maximize the success and revenue of your athletic teams. And in major college football, what's the best way to do this? It's to get into a BCS bowl game. How do you get into a BCS Bowl game? You win your games. It's not complicated. Go undefeated in a major conference (Hawaii, you may have hurt the smaller conferences a bit with your AWFUL showing), and you're quite likely in the National Championship, and even one loss will likely still put you in a Jan 1 or later bowl game. And your school (you're the Athletic Director, remember?) gets a LOT of dollars, and a lot of press, which helps recruiting, which helps you do well again next year, and the virtuous cycle continues. For those of you who like math, think of it this way. Assume you've got a 99% chance of beating a patsy on your schedule (the odd Appalachian State thing WILL happen), and a 60% chance of beating a "quality" opponent. With four non-conference games to schedule, what are your chances of sweeping four patsies? 96%. How about four "quality" opponents? 13% See the difference? Especially when the payoff is in the millions for a big bowl appearance? Even splitting the difference, and putting two "quality" opponents on the schedule drops your chances of being 4-0 to 35%.
So, unless it's more important to an AD that Mark May and Beano Cook think he's putting good enough opponents on the schedule than that his program brings in revenue, and trophies, and press, and improved recruiting rep, I don't see why there's not a lineup at the door of all of the various directional Michigan/Kentucky/Illinois schools come scheduling times. The games may be no fun to watch, or commentate on, but they do right by the schools, and their athletic departments. And if you're thinking, "it shouldn't be about the money" then you really haven't been paying attention to this whole BCS thing.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)