doubting thom

Flying over Greenland [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:35:54-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Flying over Greenland [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:35:20-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

KLM free wine in economy [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:34:52-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

KLM dinner in economy - Red curry chicken [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:34:24-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Jeff at SFO [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:33:50-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Jeff at Schophol Rijksmuseum [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:16:31-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Schiphol Rijksmuseum Panorama [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:15:56-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Schiphol Rijksmuseum Panorama [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:15:29-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Jeff at Schophol Rijksmuseum [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:14:59-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Schiphol Rijksmuseum [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:14:24-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Schiphol Rijksmuseum [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:13:54-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Flight board at Schiphol [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:12:57-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Jeff at Schiphol Airport [Flickr]

2009-11-05T04:12:10-08:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Autumn in Covington [Flickr]

2009-10-20T13:02:09-07:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Autumn in Covington [Flickr]

2009-10-20T13:00:41-07:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Driving down Main Street in Covington [Flickr]

2009-10-20T12:59:09-07:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Autumn in Covington [Flickr]

2009-10-20T12:57:31-07:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Mountains from the air [Flickr]

2009-10-20T12:48:03-07:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Virginia foliage from the air [Flickr]

2009-10-20T12:46:49-07:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

Virginia foliage from the air [Flickr]

2009-10-20T12:44:38-07:00

Thom Watson posted a photo:

an engaging story

2009-07-23T01:20:35Z

I've been remiss in updating the blog this year; rather than full-form old-style blog posts, most of my writing these days takes the form of microblogging via Twitter and/or Facebook. However, Jeff and I both have been publishing occasional posts on a new shared site, "happy together," accessible at both thomandjeff.com and jeffandthom.com, so you're covered whichever one of us comes first when you think of us as a couple.

On our shared site, currently we're chronicling our plans for our wedding this coming September 26. Yes, for those of you who haven't already heard elsewhere, we're engaged. To the semantics: yes, thanks to the odious Proposition 8 and DOMA, our union won't actually be legally considered a civil marriage in California, with any of the state or federal rights and obligations afforded to opposite-sex couples. But as far as we're concerned, it's still a wedding. And, in fact, we already are registered in California as domestic partners, which gives us the same rights and obligations as does marriage here -- though only at the state level, since the federal government won't honor the legal agreement into which our state allows us to enter, which causes all sorts of real and potential issues and headaches when traveling out of state or when filing income taxes. But anyway, back to the positive...

On Friday, February 13, Jeff and I went into San Francisco to the same state office not where you apply for a marriage license, but where you apply for a business license, in order to register as domestic partners. The next day we drove down to San Simeon, Monterey and Carmel for the weekend, and over a romantic Valentine's Day dinner in Carmel, we each proposed to the other. Happily, we both said "yes."

So, our wedding and luncheon reception will be held Saturday, September 26, 2009, on the terrace and in the adjoining Terrace Room at the historic Cliff House in San Francisco, with its dramatic location overlooking the Pacific Ocean and Seal Rock.

For more information and for future updates about the wedding, please visit happy together or subscribe to its RSS feed (http://www.thomandjeff.com/feed/).

two panoramas from today

2009-01-26T05:07:53Z

This afternoon we had brunch at the Park Chalet on the Great Highway, and then walked across the road to Ocean Beach to take some photos, from some of which I created the following 360-degree panorama:

Afterwards, we drove to the Legion of Honor Museum where we caught the 4:00 organ concert and then strolled around until the museum closed. Afterwards, we took some additional photos on the grounds, from which I created the following panorama:

links for 2008-11-24

2008-11-24T08:03:59Z

Atlas of True Names

Cool gazetteer which reveals the etymological roots of place names. E.g., San Francisco is "St. Littlefrank," Florida is "Blossoming land," Philadelphia is "Sibling Love."

(tags: atlas maps books reference linguistics language history geography names etymology world culture)

yet another opinion from Andrew Sullivan I could do without

2008-11-19T01:03:01Z

Andrew Sullivan today wrote that California's Prop. 8 "should stand, and the court should decline to reverse it. We lost. They won in a fair fight. No whining."

First of all, "we" lost? Sullivan doesn't live or vote in California. He didn't contribute may not have contributed (ed.: as Jeff S. comments, the donor database doesn't appear to be complete, so I can't assume that Sullivan didn't donate) a penny to defeat Prop. 8 (at least as of the most recent information in the donor database, from November 6 . He already has taken advantage of his right to legally marry his own same-sex partner in Massachusetts and his rights weren't taken away by popular vote. How exactly is he part of "we", and just why should we care what he thinks about this?

Second, by what stretch of the imagination was this a "fair fight"? Frankly, yes, I'd have preferred if Prop. 8 had been defeated at the ballot box, for once and for all. The elected representatives of the people, after all, approved same-sex marriage twice, but the governor vetoed it, saying that the Supreme Court should be the ones to decide.

And when it did go to the people, it won --and even so, just barely-- by saturating the air waves with hateful lies and misrepresentations that would never be acceptable if used of any other minority, through appeals to irrational fears and bigotry, and with millions of dollars and person-hours of volunteer time essentially mandated by the Mormon church of its membership, much of that money and time coming from people who don't even live in the state. And it won through the absurdity of a constitution that can be so easily amended, but not so easily revised. That's hardly "fair."

Moreover, Prop. 8 never should have been placed on the ballot for majority vote in the first place, and the California Supreme Court seemed to agree in its May ruling (hat tip Pam's House Blend) when it wrote:

"..under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process [emphasis mine]."

As I wrote a few days ago, our constitutional republic is supposed to guarantee that the rights of an unpopular minority are not subject to the vote of a majority; we have constitutions and courts specifically to protect those rights from popular vote.

It seems to me, then, that the court has a responsibility not only to hear the cases before it in the matter of Prop. 8, but that it should act to overturn it. Otherwise, we and they have effectively agreed with the popular, albeit incorrect, opinion that "the majority is always right," that the courts are "activist" as opposed simply to fulfilling their constitutionally mandated role, and thereby we essentially weaken the very foundation of our government. That is to say, if we agree that it's okay to let the majority rule in the case of equal civil rights for gays and lesbians today, and that the courts are prohibited from doing their job to protect those rights, how can we ever justify in any past or future scenario that the majority shouldn't be able to rule in taking away rights from other minorities, including racial or ethnic minorities, or religious minorities, and that the courts must remain silent and accept the will of the people then, too? Why shouldn't the majority be able to make interracial marriages illegal again, then, or to make civil marriage illegal for atheists or any other unpopular minority?

Finally, Sullivan also writes, "It is one thing to decide that gay couples are barred from civil equality from now on, but to reach back and strip couples who married in good faith under the law is excessive." I'm certainly in agreement that it would be wrong for the state to forcibly divorce couples who already legally married in California because of majority rule, though I'm unsure why Sullivan should be able to find this any different than allowing the majority only to prevent any such marriages in the future. I'm particularly chilled by the cavalier manner in which Sullivan apparently finds it acceptable to ban gay couples from civil equality, under any circumstances, just as long as we agree that it's unacceptable to take away his marriage. I'm sure your wedding cake tasted delicious, Andrew; thanks so much for your "let them have cake" attitude to those of us here in California who deserve the same equality.

"it was a great feeling, while it lasted"

2008-11-15T01:27:00Z

I was really moved by Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" in regards to same-sex marriage and California's Prop. 8 earlier this week, and several straight friends wrote to tell me about it as well. Here it is, if you haven't seen it already.

I was similarly touched by Judith Warner's most recent New York Times column, "What It Felt Like to Be Equal." The quotes Warner shares from gay people who were directly affected by the passage of Prop. 8, about feeling that gays are now perhaps the only group it is okay to publicly disdain and legally discriminate against, and how the otherwise historic election of Barack Obama can feel painfully hollow, capture exactly how I have been feeling since last Tuesday.

It wasn't that she begrudged Obama his victory. It was just that his historic triumph made the insult to her community all the more painful. An awful thought came to her that night: Now we're the designated cultural outcasts. "It's almost like we're the last group you can be openly bigoted about," she told me.

"You look around and you think more than half of the people in this state voted to take this away from us? At a time when we're celebrating the election of an African American to the White House? I don't know how you heal from it," she said. "It's hard to get it out of your bones."

And Warner's perspective as a straight person, admitting that it's not always easy to understand why this is important, is perhaps the most eloquent writing on the issue I've yet seen:

It's easy, if you're straight, to file away the gay marriage issue in a little folder in your mind, to render it, essentially, inessential. It can fall into the category of "bones you throw the religious right because things could be so much worse." Or "things that would be great in a perfect world." Or "what's the big deal?" because you don't actually get what a big deal it is to be able to get married when you've never had to consider the alternative.

Many of the gay men and lesbians I spoke or e-mailed with this week didn't fully realize what a big deal it was to be married either. Until they were.

"I don't think I had realized until then what it felt like to be equal," Swanson told me....

"I don't feel equal anymore. It was a great feeling, while it lasted."

But we shall overcome.

Tomorrow Jeff and I will be joining tens of thousands of other Americans -- gay, Lesbian, bisexual, transgender, straight, young, old, black, white, Latino, Asian -- in rallies across the country to continue to protest the injustice of Prop. 8 and laws like it. We'll be at San Francisco's City Hall at 10:30 tomorrow morning; there will be simultaneous rallies in hundreds of cities in all 50 states. You can find your closest event at the Join the Impact site.

Artist Shepard Fairey, who created the iconic Obama "Hope" and "Progress" posters, has created a special graphic for the occasion, "Defend Equality. Love Unites."

the republic, for which it misunderstands

2008-11-13T06:18:48Z

I'd been planning to write this post since the passage of California's Proposition 8 last Tuesday eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry, but because I procrastinated, as usual, others, including Jeff, have beat me to the punch. Nevertheless, here's my own take on the matter.

Two issues that have often distressed me, and that especially concern me in the aftermath of Prop. 8 are the claims like those of its supporters that 1) we live in a "democracy," which they define as "majority rule," and that 2) judges are "activists" who overstep their bounds when they overrule a majority vote directed at eliminating or restricting rights for a minority group.

First, it's shameful that so many Americans, perhaps even a majority, have such a fundamental misunderstanding of their country's government. Yes, America is a democracy, but the word "democracy" does not necessarily mean that "majority rules." There are many types of democracies. The US is, of course, a constitutional republic, a particular form of democracy that constrains the ability of the majority, or of any one person, entity or governmental branch, to have unchecked power, especially over minorities, and especially concerning individual rights:

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican... (Wikipedia)

Moreover, America was founded as such a constitutional republic in large part specifically to safeguard the rights of minorities against the "tyranny of the majority." Claiming that a majority vote is sufficient to remove a right from a minority group, then, is about as un-American an idea as possible and by definition un-republican (lower case).

And this means that the judges who make unpopular decisions upholding minority rights, whether it be the right of interracial marriage or in California of same-sex marriage, are not creating law, they are not usurping the right of the majority, for in fact the majority is constitutionally not intended to have the ability to restrict the civil rights of a minority. Rather, these courts are doing what they were created and are constitutionally obligated to do. And in doing so, they remain significantly more true to the founders' ideals than do those who would establish a mobocracy in America. For that is what the philosophy of "majority rules" is, in its purest form, nothing more than an angry, ugly mob.

You'd think that with their veneration (almost to the point of fetishization) of the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes "and to the Republic, for which it stands," the right especially would have a little better understanding of U.S. government, and would at least learn what a republic really is, if they're pledging allegiance to it. Apparently, not so. On the other hand, it's a wonder that the right loves the Pledge of Allegiance so much in the first place, given that it clearly states, "with Liberty and Justice for all." Not "all except blacks," or "all except women," or "all except gays and Lesbians," even though there were times in our history when "all" or "we the people" was believed to mean only "all white men"; it was just as wrong then as it is now, and the courts were just as correct in their duty to rule against excluding gay folk from "all" in California earlier this year as they were in ruling against noninclusive forms of "all" for people of color and for women in the past. And the 52% majority was wrong to believe that they should have any say in it, or that having voted to deny civil rights that the case should be closed.

links for 2008-11-09

2008-11-09T08:00:45Z

Calif. win emboldens coalition of religious groups [Associated Press]

New Jersey and New York gays, the tax-exempt Mormon/Catholic/evangelical alliance is coming after you next with their hate and lies. They won't stop until every state is under their version of sharia.

(tags: gay marriage bigotry homophobia religion law legislation civil_liberties catholicism mormonism fundamentalism rightwing ap)

anger. bitterness. despair.

2008-11-06T19:47:31Z

These are largely the only emotions I've been able to feel since Tuesday night, with the exception of two fleeting moment of elation 1) when the election first was called for Obama, and 2) when Obama gave his speech. Even in the midst of those moments, though, I kept being reminded that the promises inherent in an Obama presidency were not truly mine, as a gay person in America, to fully share. And while at the time I wrote that I was happy again to be an American, the truth is that by the next morning, recognizing the passage of California's Proposition 8, I no longer felt as though I truly were even considered an American by even half my adopted home state of California, much less by anywhere near half the country as a whole.

Fifty-two percent of California voters Tuesday night did something remarkable and frightening. They amended the state's constitution to strip a civil right from one group of people only. It's that easy to do, which is shocking enough, yet the same process that makes it possible to take away rights by a simple majority vote requires a much more difficult process to restore those rights. Perverse. That same night, 70% of California voters voted to give additional rights to farm animals raised for food.

How am I supposed to feel now that a sizable percentage of the people I see on a daily basis in my neighborhood, at work, in stores and restaurants, not only believe that my life and my relationship are worth less than theirs, but vote to back up their personal religious beliefs with the force of the state?

And what recourse do I have when a mere 50% plus 1 of those voting have the power to do so? That frightens me. The tyranny of the majority unchecked.

And most of these people voted to take away my rights, Jeff's rights and the rights of tens if not hundreds of thousands of other Californians and their children for one reason only. Religion. Religious leaders, subsidized by my own taxes, regularly stand up in their tax-exempt churches and tell these people to vote against me, that my life is evil and sinful, that (according to Catholic doctrine) I am "intrinsically disordered", and that I am less than human. Millions of dollars poured in from out-of-state Catholic organizations like the Knights of Columbus, and tens of millions of dollars -- between 40% and 70% of the total funds for this initiative -- were given by Mormons, many again from outside California, commanded from their pulpits to do so.

Why should churches be allowed to benefit from tax advantages when they can act so clearly and directly to take away my rights, even though I have to pay taxes but receive fewer rights than other Americans? Through my life I've been moving from a position of having been indoctrinated in religion myself, to a period of spiritual exploration, to personal atheism combined with religious tolerance. After this egregious use of religion and its taxpayer-subsidized bully pulpits to attack me and my family and to deny me my rights, however, I have moved solidly to a position that religion must be actively fought in its every attempt to intrude publicly into law, science and education, and that religious institutions should not be subsidized by the state but should pay taxes.

But hey, if preventing me from marrying the man I love and intend to spend the rest of my life with now means that your marriage is safe again, and that you'll stop those divorce proceedings so you can marry for the third time, stop beating your children, stop sleeping with your husband's best friend, and stop slapping your wife around, well, then maybe it's worth it. I'm really sorry that expressing my desire to actually enter an institution that you've already pretty much destroyed and more than half of you can't even sustain has placed such a burden on you that you have become unable to treat it with any sanctity or dignity. I never knew I had that kind of power.

Know what, though? And this is what ultimately helps me channel my anger into something more productive, and diminishes my despair. Yes, you and your superstitions and your old-fashioned bigotry may have won this skirmish. Oh, but so narrowly, and that gap continues to narrow, and quickly. In the years to come, and maybe even soon, you will lose your war on fairness and equality. Younger Americans overwhelmingly don't buy what you're selling about us -- they know us, are friends with us, love us, and see us and our relationships as no better or worse -- and they will vote for equality instead of for hate and fear.

To the 52% of my fellow Californians who voted to make me a second-class citizen on Tuesday, though, I really do have to thank you for a couple of things.

First, my love for Jeff has not been diminished by your hate, fear and/or ignorance; our relationship is no less valid than yours, nor our commitment to one another any less real or meaningful, despite your wishing it so. If anything, this attack has made us even stronger. Thank you.

Second, over the last couple of months I've been struggling with figuring out what I wanted to do next in my professional life, feeling that I needed to make a major change. While I was already leaning this way, you've absolutely helped me hone in on what that change should entail. To wit, I intend now to focus my job search with institutions like the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way, and similar organizations that work unceasingly and tirelessly to defeat your attempts to legislate hate and inequality. Thank you.

Help defeat Prop. 8. It's personal.

2008-10-22T22:46:26Z

There is an unfair ballot proposition in California that, if passed, will take away my fundamental rights. This is really important to me. Will you help me defeat Proposition 8?

Jeff and I have been together for five years. We love and support each other in the same way as families all over the country; we share the same joys and the same sorrows, we have the same dreams and the same fears. We intend to spend our lives together, and we hope to be married next year. The California Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that it is unconstitutional in California to deny us the right to marry, just as it was the first court to rule, in 1948, that laws prohibiting interracial marriages also were unconstitutional. It is the constitutional duty of the court, in fact, to safeguard the rights of minorities, and that is what the California Supreme Court did.

California's Proposition 8, however, now would take away our constitutional right to marry. It would take this right away only for same-sex couples and it would write discrimination directly into the state constitution. Constitutions are intended to delineate and give rights, not to take them away. Whatever your personal views or your church's views are on gays and lesbians (and you should know that many, many churches, religious organizations, and faith- and community-based organizations actually have come out in opposition to this hateful proposition), I trust you agree that eliminating fundamental rights -- from anyone -- is just wrong.

And this isn't just a hypothetical. If this proposition passes, Jeff and I will be prohibited from marrying next year, and the marriages of many of our friends may be invalidated. They and their children will be directly affected. Jeff and I will be directly affected. Imagine if other voters were able to decide to take away your right to marry, or to say that your own marriage had never really existed. That would be unfair. It would be wrong.

If you live in California, I hope you are already planning to vote NO. If you don't live in California, you can help by making a donation to the No on 8 campaign.

Virtually every major paper in California is against Prop 8. The L.A. Times says it is "a drastic step to strip people of rights." Even papers in the most conservative parts of the state have editorialized against Prop. 8. The San Diego Union Tribune, for example, wrote that "Prop 8...[singles] out a particular group for discrimination, a move that offends many Californians' sense of fairness." The Orange County Register said, "Revoking same-sex couples' right to marry doesn't belong in the state constitution. We recommend a "no" vote on Prop 8." And the Sacramento Bee wrote, "Californians should reject the call to amend the state constitution to exclude some people from marriage. That would be a black mark on the constitution, just as past exclusionary acts remain a stain on California's history." They know that the truly conservative position is to encourage marriage for all, not to discriminate against some.

The other side has raised over $10 million more than us, and as much as 40% 77% [ed., October 23: new estimates suggest that the percentage of donations attributed to members of the LDS Church is much higher than originally reported] of their donations have come from the Mormon Church. No one church should be able to decide what civil rights we enjoy as private citizens of this country. The Prop. 8 supporters are using their vast war chest to spread lies and misinformation. Your donation will help reach undecided voters who need to hear that Prop. 8 is wrong and unfair.

If all of this doesn't convince you, I hope you'll email me (thom at thomwatson.com) so we can talk about this. You can also find out more at the No on Prop 8 site.

Thank you for doing all you can to defeat Prop. 8.

links for 2008-09-19

2008-09-19T09:30:55Z

The Associated Press: Palin's husband refuses to testify in probe

She hasn't even been elected to federal office yet she and her family are already behaving like Bush-Cheney, thinking they're above the law. And the investigation was begun by and is run by Republicans, so the "partisan" charge is absurd. And why is her husband, who was not elected by the citizens of Alaska, sitting in on government meetings and being cc'ed on official state emails?

(tags: politics elections palin hypocrisy subpoenas legal alaska troopergate cronyism CNN)

links for 2008-09-17

2008-09-17T08:01:36Z

Richard Cohen - The Ugly New McCain [wapo]

Wow! Never thought I'd see Richard Cohen write this column: "McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: They lie. He tells the truth.... He serves his country differently, that's all -- but just as honorably. No more, though. I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty.... McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not."

(tags: politics wapo elections palin lies mccain hypocrisy media)

links for 2008-09-15

2008-09-15T08:01:37Z

chartjunk » Tax Plans (that's one for you, nineteen for me).

An intriguing visualization showing the stark differences between Obama's tax cut plans (overwhelmingly for all those except the extremely rich, and substantial cuts for those making the least) and McCain's (overwhelmingly benefitting the richest Americans.

(tags: politics mccain obama visualization republicans democrats elections money charts economics taxes graphs)
Sarah Palin, predator control, shooting wolves [Salon]

"Her deadly wolf program: With a disdain for science that alarms wildlife experts, Sarah Palin continues to promote Alaska's policy to gun down wolves from planes."

(tags: palin politics nature science salon elections environment animals conservation wolves hunting alaska)
The Sorrow and the Pity: When it comes to foreign policy, Sarah Palin doesn't know what she's talking about. [Slate]

"Judging from the excerpts shown Thursday on ABC's World News and Nightline, there are several appropriate responses to watching Sarah Palin answer Charlie Gibson's questions on foreign policy and national security--sorrow, pity, incredulity, fear."

(tags: palin politics elections slate inexperience russia alaska)
Campaign of lies disgraces McCain [St. Petersburg Times]

The articles and editorials calling out McCain and Palin have finally begun; the media has finally started doing their job. Here, even the paper in St. Petersburg, Florida.

(tags: politics lies mccain elections editorial)

links for 2008-09-14

2008-09-14T08:31:02Z

Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claims [wsj]

Even the conservative Wall Street Journal points out Palin's lies on the bridge to nowhere claim. "Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government 'thanks but no thanks' to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state. But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere."

(tags: palin lies politics elections alaska mccain wsj)
Palin Camp Provides Conflicting Accounts of Iraq Visit | The Trail | [wapo]

Palin is caught in yet another lie, as it turns out she never visited Iraq last year. "Obama aides described the revisions to Palin's account as part of a growing pattern of deception. 'The McCain campaign said Governor Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, but now we know she supported it. They said she didn't seek earmarks, but now we know she hired a lobbyist to get millions in pork for her town and her state. They said she visited Iraq, but today we learned that she only stopped at the border. Americans are starting to wonder, is there anything the McCain campaign isn't lying about?'" Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor asked in a statement e-mailed to reporters."

(tags: politics palin lies elections wapo)
Sarah Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere - Fact Checker [wapo]

"The McCain-Palin campaign seems to think that a statement becomes true simply by dint of repetition. A TV advertisement repeats the dubious claim that vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin "stopped" the nation's most infamous symbol of pork-barrel spending. It's been pretty clearly established by now that the "bridge to nowhere" was going nowhere at all before the Alaska governor formally signed the death warrant in September 2007.... It would be more accurate to say that she finally bowed to fiscal reality and congressional politics after a year as governor, and killed off a project that had become a national joke."

(tags: palin lies elections politics wapo)
Weekend edition - Fact Checker: Palin and Earmarks [wapo]

"John McCain is trying to claim that black is white when he argues that his running mate, Sarah Palin, has not accepted earmarks as Governor of Alaska. While it is true that she has sought fewer earmarks than her predecessor, Governor Frank Murkowski, Alaska still leads the nation in terms of per capita spending on earmarks, according to Citizens Against Government Waste."

(tags: palin lies elections politics wapo)
As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood [wapo]

"But a visit to this former mining supply post 40 miles north of Anchorage shows the extent to which Palin's mayoralty was also defined by what it did not include. The universe of the mayor of Wasilla is sharply circumscribed even by the standards of small towns, which limited Palin's exposure to issues such as health care, social services, the environment and education. Palin limited her duties further by hiring a deputy administrator to handle much of the town's day-to-day management. Her top achievement as mayor was the construction of an ice rink, a project that landed in the courts and cost the city more than expected. Arriving in office, Palin herself played down the demands of the job in response to residents who worried that her move to oust veteran officials would leave the town in the lurch. 'It's not rocket science," Palin said, according to the town newspaper, the Frontiersman. "It's $6 million and 53 employees.'"

(tags: palin elections politics wapo)
Op-Ed Columnist - She's Not Ready [nytimes]

Herbert: "While watching the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night, and the coverage of the Palin phenomenon in general, I've gotten the scary feeling, for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail. How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride? For those who haven't noticed, we're electing a president and vice president, not selecting a winner on 'American Idol.'"

(tags: nyt op-ed palin presidency politics election)
Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes [nytimes]

The Times highlights the vindictive ambitiousness of Palin, the friends she's hired, and the political and personal enemies she's punished using her political power. And she's being held up as an example of ethical behavior? Only on Bizarro Earth.

(tags: politics elections presidency palin ethics nyt)
Editorial - Gov. Palin's Worldview [nytimes]

"If [McCain] seriously thought this first-term governor -- with less than two years in office -- was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible."

(tags: politics editorial republicans mccain palin election creationism conservatism government presidency nyt)

scylla and charybdis on I-66

2008-05-22T23:10:41Z

So assume you're driving in a state with the following two separate traffic laws:

When police, fire and rescue vehicles or ambulances approach you using a siren, flashing light or both, you must immediately yield the right-of-way; and
Upon approaching a stationary emergency vehicle that is displaying a flashing, blinking, or alternating emergency light you must proceed with caution and, if reasonable, with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, yield the right-of-way by making a lane change into a lane not adjacent to that occupied by the stationary emergency vehicle or, if changing lanes would be unreasonable or unsafe, proceed with due caution and maintain a safe speed for highway conditions (called the "move-over" law).

Now, you find yourself in the following situation:

Driving in the right lane of an interstate highway, you see ahead of you the flashing lights of several stopped state police cars on the right shoulder. According to the second law above, you must move over to the left lane, so you do.

Once you move into the left lane, however, you pass a state police car parked on the left shoulder (it does not have its lights flashing). After you and several other cars pass it, it pulls out and turns on its lights.

According to the first law above, you must yield right-of-way to the approaching police vehicle, so you should move back into the right lane to let it pass. When you do, it doesn't pass you, but neither does it pull in behind you and signal that you should pull over and stop. It continues to stay just behind and to the left.

What do you do? If you stay in the right lane now and pass the police cars parked on the right shoulder, you'll be guilty of violating the second law above. If you move back into the left lane in front of the patrol car there, though, you'll be guilty of violating the first law.

When this happened to me (yeah, it's not a hypothetical) when we were returning to Dulles airport after flying out Virginia earlier this month to attend my nephew's college graduation in Roanoke, I slowed down and stayed in the right lane, and immediately after passing the line of police cars parked on the right shoulder, the police car in the left lane finally passed me, and pulled off the road, while the last car in the line already on the right shoulder pulled out, turned on its siren, pulled me over, and ticketed me for violating the second law above.

When I explained the extenuating circumstances, the officer would hear none of it and issued a summons to appear in court next month. Noting, though, that I live in California, he said I could just plead guilty and pre-pay the fine by mail or online, and not have to physically appear.

Were I still living in Virginia, I absolutely would have gone to court to fight it, based on the fact that the second law says that the lane change must be made "if reasonable," and that given the circumstances I did not feel it was reasonable and that I was, in fact, put in a no-win situation by the officer's refusal to consider the impact of the second police car on my decision. But because I couldn't afford to take time off from work and buy an airplane ticket to fly back across the country for the court appearance, I reluctantly decided I would just pay the fine.

So I went online to try to find out how much the fine was, and how to pay it. I thought it would be around $30, which is the amount of most such fines for failing to yield right-of-way. The URL for the court system listed on the summons and on the automated voicemail for the county court, however, was incorrect. The automated message included the fines for only some traffic violations, but not for the one for which I was cited, and the message cut off in the middle every time I called it. I finally found my court case information online today (the summons was issued May 4, but they only finally entered it into their system this morning), but the option to pre-pay my fine wasn't active. So I found another phone number and finally reached a live person who told me that there was no pre-payment available for that violation, that I had to appear in court, and that the penalties can be quite severe (apparently a fine of up to $2500 and, under certain circumstances, license suspension and up to one month in jail!). When I explained that I live in California, and appearing in court would be difficult, she said that I could send a letter in my stead which would be attached to my case information and read by the judge at the time of my hearing.

So that's what I've done. Now I keep my fingers crossed and hope that either the trooper doesn't show up the day of my case, or that the judge agrees that what I did was "reasonable," especially given that I was in a no-win situation.

I'm not heartened, however, by the person on the phone's assertion that an absence on my court date, even with a letter, usually ends in an automatic guilty finding. Nor by the fact that this was clearly a sting operation: there was no real emergency, just four state police cars taking turns pulling people over in a taxpayer-funded version of automobile leapfrog (once one person was pulled over by one officer in the line, then the next person who drove by was guilty, so they were pulled over by the last officer in the line, which then meant that the person who next passed them got pulled over by another one of the waiting officers, ad infinitum). And the action of the other trooper actually makes me feel entrapped, given that he wouldn't pull ahead or behind me, but kept his car in a position where I would have to violate one law or the other.

I didn't bring up those issues in the letter, of course, as I want to fight the charge strictly on the merits of my decision and the unique situation itself, not muddy the waters by making it look like I was attacking the state police or questioning either their motives or the validity of the law. I understand the intent behind the law, as several state policemen in Virginia have been killed when they've been struck by cars while in the process of issuing a ticket and standing next to someone's driver's side window, but I don't like being set up for failure especially when throughout the incident I had been trying to obey the law, by moving over to the left lane in the first place, and then back to the right lane later.

It certainly doesn't make me want to return to Virginia anytime soon, and when I do visit again, I have no intention of getting behind the wheel of a car there. My family will have to come pick us up at the airport.

shake it up, baby

2007-10-31T03:24:20Z

Earlier today I was laughing about the mention on the news of a 2.9-magnitude earthquake near Concord; 2.9 hardly seems worth mentioning, and hardly would be felt. Then, about twenty minutes ago, our own house started shaking, dishes were rattling, and the cats went ballistic, their claws scrabbling frantically on the floor as they ran wildly about trying to figure out what to do, as we experienced what is currently being classified a 5.6-magnitude earthquake whose epicenter is down near San Jose. We're fine; the shaking lasted about ten seconds, and there was a fair amount of noise from dishes and glasses rattling around, and one picture tilted slightly on the wall, but furniture stayed put and there was no damage. All in all, pretty mild--given our distance from the epicenter--but relatively long. The 1957 quake, which had its epicenter here in Daly City, was a 5.3, so it's a little sobering to think how this one might have been different if it had been closer.

The cats are still a little spooked, but Tiki's just come into the kitchen to eat, so they're starting to calm down.

As the earthquake was happening, I updated my Facebook profile with the info, and posted a twit immediately after I filled out the USGS questionnaire; I was frustrated, in fact, that it was taking so long for the USGS site to update with the current quake so I could submit our experiences. I'm such a geek.