The Runcible Blog

listening to: Vibrate from the album "The Love Below" by Outkast

Monday night I volunteered at the Salem office of Dean's campaign. Although the volunteers said that Saturday's effort was more organized, I saw some hectic disorganization on Monday night.

I arrived at 5pm but stood around for a while waiting for someone to direct me. Finally I was told to man the phones (something I've never done) and received a quick briefing on what to ask voters. Since I'm not fond of phones, I ended up manning a copy machine instead, xeroxing inaccurate Mapquest maps. At about 9pm they needed someone to deliver door hangers and videos to some homes in Pelham. I enthusiastically volunteered, but after driving around for a while realized that I couldn't follow the directions they gave me. So I returned at 10, in time for the office meeting in which the leader announced that someone mistakenly put the wrong "polling place" address on about 600 door hangers in the Salem area. As a result, there was a mad dash to fill out correct hangers and deliver them to those 600 homes.

After extensively studying my map I set out again at 10:30, determined to finish the route. I soon discovered that streets in Pelham may or may not exist, and homeowners typically don't put their street address numbers on their mail boxes. But, after an hour of back-tracking I hit nearly every house (except the ones that didn't exist). It was tough but not as hard as the work the very determined volunteers performed in the past several months. Some people were up at 3:00AM delivering materials, and others looked completely drained by Monday night.

Yesterday I was assigned to do "visibility" at a Derry precinct. We stood outside the school holding signs and greeting voters. (I had an awkward moment when Gen. Clark arrived to greet voters. I shook his hand happily, but I really didn't have anything to say to him. So I kind of stood there for a minute and walked away. He must've seen my Dean sticker and wasn't that interested in talking to me anyway.) Over the course of the few hours I was there I heard periodic updates from another volunteer and from the "zone chief commander" (or whatever they're called) saying that the exit poll numbers indicated the race was very close between Kerry and Dean, and that Derry volunteers were working hard to get people out to vote. It seemed that if all the Dean supporters in Derry voted, Dean would overtake Kerry -- at least in Derry. This assumption turned out to be wildly off the mark. Kerry won Derry by about 300 votes! But it appeared to those of us on the ground that we were always just in reach of pulling it off.

In fact, here is an email I got Tuesday afternoon from the NH campaign manager:

From"Karen Hicks, Dean for America" nhdeanreport@deanforamerica.com
SubjectIt's a very close race - call your friends and neighbors
Date Tue, January 27, 2004 4:51 pm
To dcs@adullmoment.com

The polls are only open for a few more hours. This race is EXTREMELY close. Our projections are that Governor Dean is very close to winning the New Hampshire Primary. But to win, he needs your help...right NOW!

Please pick up the phone and call your friends and family who live in New Hampshire. If we can get another 900 more Dean supporters to the polls before they close - we'll win. Go visit your neighbors. Drive them to the polls. Howard Dean can win with your help!

Together we can change the way Washington works and politics is done.

One final reminder: Dean for America does NOT make "robo-calls" in New Hampshire. There are many reports of such robo-calls with pre-recorded messages delivering misinformation to voters. These calls have not originated from this campaign. If we win today, we will prove that this sort of negative campaigning has no place in New Hampshire.

Thank you. And please do all you can before the polls close.

Share the power. Invite everybody: http://www3.deanforamerica.com/site/R?i=EDJ5woTRupyo5DnivCNQ8g

So, it came as quite a surprise to hear "Kerry: 39%, Dean: 24%" shortly after the polls closed. We were still hoping the numbers were wrong and that Dean would surge ahead in the final tally, but I think we knew it wasn't going to happen.

Two Derry volunteers and I then decided to head to the concession/victory "party" in Manchester. It turned we didn't even need tickets to get in. Many supporters just decided to return home and sleep, but there were I'd say a couple thousand people filling the auditorium at SNHU. I was glad to see so much optimism and energy, and Dean's speech -- though it was his standard stump -- met with a huge showing of support. I don't know if the cameras captured the enthusiasm, but I got the sense that those of us in Manchester were in it for the long haul and believe Dean can make a comeback. At the same time, I sensed a concealed doubt among many supporters and saw some people on the verge of tears.

For all the effort and energy that New Hampshire volunteers put in over the past few months, a second place finish (more than 10 points behind) must hurt. Dean might lose some momentum but will retain many of his core supporters.

It's hard for me to look back in hindsight and determine why exactly NH voters chose Kerry over Dean or why the margin was as large as it was. I'm sure it had something to do with Dean's perceived "electability" -- voters chose the bland but "safe" Kerry out of political pragmatism. But I can't provide much commentary on the issue.

I do believe that Dean's campaign means more than just winning the presidency. He's said many times that his campaign is about changing America, and he's the only candidate that is believable when he says "You have the power..." to enact change. He leverages and encourages the genuine grassroots support he's collected. The other candidates, in contrast, seem to say, "thank you for choosing me". In other words, their candidacy is more focused on winning a race than really changing the country for the better. At least that's my impression of the other guys.

I'll have pictures of the Manchester event soon, but here's one that proves I was there:

<%image(images/20040128-nhspeech.jpg|400|350)%>

I've noticed a bunch of segfaults lately in apache's log:

[Sun Jan 25 23:51:36 2004] [notice] child pid 9999 exit signal Segmentation fault (11)

I think I've tracked the problem down to too much compression. I have mod_gzip installed, but it is configured to ignore PHP files. But I did have

zlib.output_compression = On

in php.ini.

The problem was that when I installed turck-mmcache to cache compiled PHP scripts in memory/disk space, I didn't notice the

mmcache.compress="1"

option.

So, either PHP was trying to compress code that mmcache had already compressed, or vice versa. Either way, it lead to periodic apache segfault. But, now I have turned off zlib.output_compression since mmcache should handle the compression. It seems to speed things up quite a bit, and the gzip compression (together with mod_gzip for static pages) really helps to squeeze the most performance out of the limited upload speed I have here.

Ok, end of computer babble.

UPDATE: I may have spoken too soon. The segmentation faults continue....

Is it bad karma to cut off a funeral procession so that I don't have to wait 5 minutes for them to pass?

Why do I get the urge to punch something whenever Bush speaks?

I should say that i've been in pretty good spirits lately, even if my tone seems negative. But the state of the union address really pushed my buttons. The president gets an hour of free airtime to distort the truth, gloat to his friends, and condemn those who disagree as unpatriotic enemies of America. And the only feedback allowed from the audience (congress) is either enthusiastic applause or a standing ovation. I'd imagine that if Bush gave his speech to Parliament in Britain he'd have been booed to death. (similarly, if he'd given the speech to Parliament, the band, he would have been funked up. *rimshot*)

The camera panned away during applause for audience reaction, but whenever it panned back to Bush he was giving his characteristic dumb-ass, arrogant smirk. Laura Bush, on the other hand, maintains an incredibly creepy, demented grin at all times. She's either drugged beyond belief or is actually a robotic house wife from circa 1952.

Have you noticed how often Bush talks about "freedom"? I believe that he is employing a well-known technique where one repeats a word so often that the word becomes meaningless or loses its original meaning. After hearing a Bush speech one starts taking the words free and freedom for granted, which inevitably opens the definition up to distortion. For instance, does the PATRIOT act preserve America's freedom or does it enable government agencies to spy on law abiding citizens, thus encroaching on their freedom? Does the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage preserve America's freedom or does it discriminate against a large group of people? Bush complained, "Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard." I almost smashed the TV at that line. Coming from the president who said he didn't pay attention to focus groups (the millions of protesters before the war), I'd say he can pretty much STFU on this one.

Back to freedom -- I particularly enjoy the term, Enemies of Freedom. To put international terrorism and politics into such comically simplistic terms insults everyone's intelligence. And coming from an intellectual titan like Bush, it's doubly insulting. Any enemy of the US is just jealous. They just hate our freedom, that's all.

But wait a minute, if this epic battle is all about freedom, shouldn't people be free to hate America's freedom? And, since Rumsfeld said, "...freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes.", does that mean I'm free to loot? Oh no, I'm getting trapped in a maze of meaningless uses of the word freedom!

Well, if Bush is going to refer to any miscellaneous enemy of America as an Enemy of Freedom, I'll have to start using the term to refer to a true "Enemy of Freedom": George W. Bush! My mischievous hope is that by linking Enemy of Freedom to Bush's site (and if others do, too), the phrase will be Google bombed, and anyone searching for Enemy of Freedom will be directed to a true Enemy of Freedom. Try searching for "miserable failure" on Google. The bombing campaign works! Try it -- it's fun!

I saw Girl With a Pearl Earring Friday night. Critics have praised the film's beauty, and I think the praises are deserved, for the most part. But I can't help but nitpick a movie I just spent $9.25 to see:

• The setting is Holland, 1665, yet the characters all have British accents (and it's an American movie). I know it's a common trick to give all foreign people British accents in American movies, but it does seem silly.
• The foley artists went a little overboard with the minute sound effects. It sounded like the actors were wearing tap shoes.
• The film gets a little sloppy during the candle lit scenes. Either they pushed the film or used higher speed film for those parts. The shadows become grainier and grayer.
• Possibly related to the previous nit: the color balance/film characteristics changed somewhat between the outdoor and indoor scenes in a noticeable-yet-not-pronounced-enough-to-be-deliberate way. I don't know if it was Kendall Theater's copy or the original negative that looked a little off.

Those are my only nits, and they're very picky at that. I can't comment on the plot because I don't even know how much truth there is to the story. I know it's based on a novel by Tracy Chevalier. The plot isn't fleshed out very much; the film is more of a "character based" story -- which is to say, it's a chick flick. But that's alright. I liked it, overall (though unfortunately, I didn't have a chick to bring along to the flick).

I might see it again when it comes out on DVD but only to spend another 2 hours staring at Scarlett Johansson. Gaa-gaa.

The Iowa caucus is rapping up by now, and it looks like Kerry will win (boo! hiss!).

That whole caucus concept is so archaic. Watching it on CSPAN is about as much fun as watching little kids choose teams for a kickball game. I thought I was bad for not being able to outline adequately Dean's platform for undecided voters; these caucus-goers seem surprisingly superficial. One Dean supporter said, "Join us. Governors are natural presidents." (paraphrased). Most of the people at the caucuses on TV seemed motivated more by gut than reason, which I suppose isn't a bad thing. But it doesn't bode well.

I support Dean for some superficial reasons too: I don't trust Kerry because he's a Skull and Bones member (and won't talk about it); I can't support Clark because I'd rather not vote for someone from the military industrial complex; Edwards doesn't impress me (talk about a superficial reason!) and just doesn't seem interesting enough. Kucinich has some good ideas, but he wouldn't stand a chance against Bush attack ads. No, I still think Dean can take the nomination and put up a good fight against Bush. He's certainly not the radical liberal many pundits have tried to paint him as (I disagree with some of Dean's opinions -- for instance, his support of the Afghanistan war). And he doesn't seem like the angry, pessimistic candidate everyone's harping about. It's called standing up for something -- Washington insiders could learn a thing or two.

As an aside, I just heard Chris Matthews ask, "DO YOU THINK THE PERCEPTION THAT DEAN IS ANGRY HAS HURT HIM IN IOWA? DOES IT SEEM THAT HE'S YELLING AT PEOPLE?" Gee, I don't know, Chris, but the yelling bit seems to have worked for you!

---

Getting back to that sweaty caucus, I propose that instead of having each candidate's supporters try to sway each other to join one camp or another, they should fight to the death for their candidate. They should paint their faces with goat's blood, dress in their candidate's traditional tartan colors, and wield battle axes and spears. Whichever group survives claims all of Iowa's delegates for their candidate...and gets to rape and pillage the nearest metropolis.

All I'm saying is that if you're going to use archaic systems like caucuses, why not go all out and get medieval on the electorate?

Bush's plan for manned missions to Mars and the moon has been receiving a fair amount of criticism already. It's surprising to see the Tribune come out against a Bush policy. That can't be a good sign.

I think criticism of the policy is warranted, but not for the same reasons most people are using. According to the Tribune, "the public is evenly split on the wisdom of sending humans back to the moon and beyond; and if forced to choose, a majority (55 percent) would rather see the money spent on domestic programs." It looks like the Op-Ed's are focusing on the financial aspect of the policy rather than the scientific worth. Now, as ever, there are plenty of people calling for the dismantlement of the entire space program, claiming it is a waste of money that could be spent on schools or other social programs. Those critics do have a point -- space exploration is expensive, but unfortunately I think NASA is unjustly being treated as the whipping boy of the government, as usual.

Any time there is a major story about a NASA proposal or anything dealing with tax money, critics come out of the woodwork to propose massive cuts in the already drastically cut NASA budget. I did a quick search for the budget numbers, and here's what I found, for comparison:
NASA Fiscal Year 2003 Budget: $15.0 billion
NASA Fiscal Year 2004 Budget: $15.47 billion
2% of the discretionary budget
---
Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2003 Budget: $364.6 billion
Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2004 Budget: $379.9 billion
Nearly 50% of the discretionary budget
---
Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2004 Budget $41.3 (or $26.7 if you use fuzzy math) billion

I chose to pick on the Defense Department's budget, but nearly every other department of the government has a larger budget than NASA. The fact is that Americans pay at least 25 times as much tax money for developing weapons of mass destruction than we do for space exploration, and 7 times as much as we spend on education. Yet where are the public debates about whether we should spend $12.2 billion this year for building ships, or $8 billion for a missile defense system which has been a huge boondoggle to date and which probably won't protect America at all? When will Americans start writing letters complaining that we already have enough F-22 fighters and that $5.2 billion can be better used improving infrastructure?

There was much controversy about the Big Dig's budget overruns. I think at last count the project has cost upwards of $15 billion dollars over 20 (?) years. The Department of Defense has already spent that amount in the first two weeks of January (if you average the money out over time). Think about that for a second. Talk about misplaced priorities.

In an economic slowdown, NASA and other scientific endeavors face budget cuts and irate taxpayers, while the DOD carries on with business as usual. I'm sure real economists and political scientists can explain this phenomenon much better than I can, but just thinking about it from an average citizen's perspective boggles my mind.

So, I think there are good reasons to be skeptical of any manned missions to Mars or the moon at this time (and I'm sure many astrophysicists will agree); I just don't think money should be the primary concern. NASA seems to be doing "more with less" lately, and I think they have a lot of very interesting and useful programs in the planning stages (space telescopes, more unmanned probes/rovers, etc.) which should be encouraged and funded.

I would be happy if people started putting as much pressure on the Defense Department as they nitpick other Departments' budgets.

just my 2¢

It occurs to me that I should reread each entry before posting. I'm not happy with my often awkward phrasing (being an aspiring grammar Nazi doesn't help). Can I get a proofreader?

Slate is running a series of letters this week from "liberal hawks", asking them if hindsight has changed their view of the war. Predictably, no one comes out and says, "I made a big mistake supporting this war.", though the pundits seem to feel uneasy about some things. Overall, I get the impression that the liberal hawks in this discussion haven't changed their minds. Of course they wouldn't! They're pundits! They're never wrong. about anything.

My distaste for pundits in general (with few exceptions) and so-called liberal hawks in particular stems from their cold, calculated view of the world. Reading Thomas Friedman's columns in the New York Times leaves me thinking that he lives in his own bubble of reality, whether it comes to globalization or the Iraq war, Israel, anything. I also get the impression that pundits treat the world like some giant game of Risk (conservatives treat it like Monopoly). To them, waging war comes as easily as rearranging pieces on a game board, even though they claim to be concerned about the human cost. At least conservative pundits don't hesitate to speak, in the most testosterone-filled manner, of destroying countries and looting natural resources; liberal columnists write with a tone that suggests a repugnant flippancy toward the costs of war.

For instance, Ken "The Threatening Storm" Pollack has this to say about the war, in hindsight:

"my guess is that many readers would still have come to the conclusion that war was the least-bad choice among a menu of imperfect options."

Wow, that's very convincing. The pundits are now trying to rationalize their support for an illegal war in ways that leave them looking correct, while criticizing everything the administration has done wrong. Well I'm sorry, guys; you can't have it both ways. You knew the administration was lying and that there was no plan for an occupation, yet you remained gung-ho all along. You've made your bed. Now we all have to sleep in it.

Of course, people like Tom Friedman are unfazed by any of the wrong turns in Iraq thus far because they live in their own fantasy world. He writes such illuminating things as:

"The right reason for this war was to partner with Arab moderates in a long-term strategy of dehumiliation and redignification."
And such enlightening observations as:
"Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could—period."

I think someone called that possessive pronoun use "the Imperial 'we'". In truth, the pundits who think of war as an item on a menu are never, never in any danger of fighting in said war, nor do they seem aware of their privileged positions. They talk about the war "we" are fighting against radical Islam as if they themselves were marching on the front lines. Unfortunately, inflated egos and self importance come with the territory of punditry (with the exception of, perhaps, Bob Herbert). Even my favorite columnist, Paul Krugman, bugs me by his refusal at times to admit that he was wrong.

Another sense I get from reading liberal hawks' columns is that the ends justify the means. Even though they knew the WMD issue was exaggerated and that links to Al Qaeda were tenuous at best and nonexistent at worst, they still felt that regime change in Iraq would be a grand idea at this opportunity, when American's were most impressionable. I can't describe in words how disgusting I think that philosophy is. Dean took a lot of flack for saying, "In general I think the ends don't justify the means." To me it sounded like common sense but cold-hearted rational columnists must've taken it as a personal insult. Those pundits were complicit in Bush's deception and deserve a fair helping of scorn. (I feel similarly about certain presidential candidates who try to give the "we were hoodwinked into signing that bill authorizing force! " excuse at this point. either they were very naive at the time or they're lying now.)

And for people who claim to be concerned about liberation and human rights for Iraqi's, why don't these columnists, and for that matter, anyone in the media ever talk about the Iraqi casualty count? They mention the enormous number of dead under Saddam's watch, but the only tally I read from either liberal or conservative columnists is the U.S. soldier body count. I'm sure these cold rationalists will say that the human toll was worth the chance for a free Arab nation. And I'm sure they are quick to call up the Iraqi children's families to tell them that their kids' deaths are for a good cause. Any reasonable Iraqi would understand that, right?

I think this letter writer, George Packer, sums up the liberal hawk mindset very well here:

I think we should stop talking about vast change in the Arab world and focus on doing what we can—even as our influence wanes by the day—to get Iraq right. Sept. 11 made us think about big ideas, global conflicts—inevitably, and rightly. But Iraq should make us think about practical knowledge and nuanced judgment. One problem with liberal hawks is that great moral dramas are always more attractive to us than difficult long-term tasks.

And the problem, although it's a cliché, is that liberal hawks (or really, most "elites" -- conservative or liberal thinkers) look down on the world's problems from their high vantage point. For them, rearranging pieces on a board looks simple; war looks "tidy" from afar and social problems are reduced to moral failure rather than systematic decay.

Do you know what happens to those kids in school who always have an answer for everything (even the rhetorical and trick questions) when they grow up? They become columnists and media whores. It's as if something in their brains is broken. I know that people often say that people my age think we know everything ('specially them college folk), but media personalities seem never to "grow out" of that stage. (in fairness, I'm not sure if I have yet)

When I think of it, kids are constantly taught to create arguments for issues for which they have no opinion. Most of the time the result is BS. Effective BS is rewarded.
Pundits simply are bullshit experts who have been buried in their own fecal matter for so long that they don't notice the stench anymore!

Yes, I think I have it figured out... not that anyone asked or cared.

These are some of Modher Sadeq-Saba Tamimi's secret sketches for two illegal long-range missiles, one using two engines and one using five boosters.
Photo Credit: Preston Keres -- The Washington Post

When I saw these advanced sketches, I thought I was looking at The Onion, but actually the image comes from this Washington Post story about Iraq's weapons programs. The story deconstructs the pre-war claims of the "grave threat" Iraq's WMD's posed to the world.

The broad picture emerging from the investigation to date suggests that, whatever its desire, Iraq did not possess the wherewithal to build a forbidden armory on anything like the scale it had before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Bam!

The article says that Iraq may have been working on designing long range missiles based on the Al Samoud, missiles which the Iraq declared to the UN and which UNMOVIC subsequently destroyed. These secret, longer range missiles were never built and seemed to rely on obsolete designs. In fact,

In test flights, the Al Samoud missile never landed -- literally -- within a mile of its target. In 2001, Tamimi obtained a small black-market supply of precision Russian gyroscopes. He hoped they would increase the missile's accuracy from about 1.5 miles to 500 yards. To increase accuracy still further, he said "we were near success" in negotiating a contract -- he would not say with whom -- for a complete Russian-built inertial navigation system.

But it appears that the engineers never succeeded (due to the embargoes, containment, and constant UN pressure/inspections) in building any such missiles. Furthermore, Dr. Kay's investigation team is uncovering a web of internal deception aimed to appease Saddam Hussein and deter foreign conflict by exaggerating their own WMD claims.

"Saddam Hussein ordered this work, but where would we get the materials?" said an Iraqi general who declined to be named and who kept close tabs on Tamimi's missile designs. "This was the case in every field. People would prepare reports under the order of Saddam Hussein and the supervision of the people around Saddam Hussein. But it was not real."

The story paints a picture of an Iraqi weapons program plagued by obsolete technology, infighting, exaggerated claims, and lack of materials -- a far cry from the "grave danger" this administration warned against in the run-up to the war.

I hope this story gains traction and that more people start waking up to the Bush administration's pattern of lies.
As my bumper sticker succinctly states: "George W. Bush: Ignorant, a Liar, or Just Incompetent?"
No matter how you slice it, it's bad news for the country.

Well, I'm back from vacation now. Whoo! It was great.

Oh, wait, I didn't take a vacation. I was just lazy about writing anything.

But now, 10 days after the new year, I'm ready to make resolutions. As soon as I think of a resolution to keep, I'll resolve to keep it. Perhaps I should resolve to write more sordid details of my life. I'm sure google searchers would benefit from knowing that I had a piece of drywall stuck in my eye today, for instance.

Seriously though, I'd like to recap the past month or so, but uhh...I can't quite remember everything. I remember thinking on christmas that after 20 years I think I understand now that giving is better than receiving. Oh boy, what a revelation! not really. Every year I care less about christmas -- maybe because my room is so full of stuff that I don't want any new clutter.

I've seen a bunch of movies in the past month, including several from the Stanley Kubrick DVD box set that I got for christmas. I'll leave the reviews to Siskel and Kermit though.

New Year's Eve was somewhat memorable because I went to a party in Cambridge. The party wasn't that great, but it was better than sleeping. And the people were alright. That's a good thing, right?

Is it a bad sign that Wally is my hero these days? What does it say about my job if I seriously think about using this speech at work?