Hey

So, I haven’t posted in a long time. And I probably won’t be posting much for a while longer. I’m fantastically busy right now, it’s impossible to make time for everything, and something had to give. But I may try to post at least a little bit. No promises.

About Bush lying and all that; let’s cut to the chase: the man lies like a rug. He usually has other people do his lying for him, either intentionally or because he’s too dimwitted to put a stop to it.

In any case, his biggest and most apalling lie was his assertion, implied by his candidacy, that he was fit to govern our country. It really has been like Curious George Goes to Washington.

But I can’t go on about it anymore, because it just depresses me. I intend to have a celebration when this man leaves office, assuming he hasn’t got us all killed or unemployed by then.

Did Bush Lie? Part Two

We now continue our earlier episode of Did Bush Lie?

THE CASE OF THE SIXTEEN WORDS (continued)

Test 3: Did He Know It Was Untrue?

It depends on who you ask.

A reasonable person who read this FactCheck.org summary could not be blamed if they came away feeling that Bush did not knowingly restate misleading information. And an advance release of this article by Norman Podhoretz of Commentary Magazine provides a fairly compelling case that Bush is innocent.

Indeed, even former President Clinton appeared sanguine about the matter in 2003, saying, Everyone makes mistakes.”

So are we done?

It’s one thing to say that everyone believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I sure did. Most people I know did, too. But collective suspicion is not enough to justify war. Such drastic action requires evidence. And at the time Bush made his claim, hard evidence was scarce, despite a consensus of opinion. One purpose of the UN inspectors in Iraq was to gather such evidence.

So if the President says we have evidence that Saddam is seeking uranium and uses that to help make his case for action sooner rather than later, and that evidence later turns out to be questionable, it’s no excuse to say that everyone thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. A majority did think that, but substantially fewer people thought that we had evidence to justify military action in lieu of continued sanctions and inspections.

And there are some folks who do think that Bush lied. For example, Francis T. Mandanici (and I have no idea who he is) makes a case for a special prosecutor, potentially leading to impeachment. (I should point out that this article is hosted on a site run by damn Canadians, who would probably like nothing more than to foster political instability here in the US, so that they can rush in and seize our… well, I’m not sure what, but I’m sure their intent is nefarious!) I’ve not read his entire account, and make no endorsement, but I provide it here by way of example.

And of course we have the Downing Street Memo.

But what really leaves me with doubts is the reporting that has been done by Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo. I’m not going to link to a bunch of articles here, partly because the site has a decent search function which you can avail yourself of if you’re interested, but mostly because there have been so many over such a long period of time.

Josh has no rock-solid evidence that Bush has lied, (that I’ve seen at least) and he’d probably be the first to admit that. But he’s been poking around along the edges, peering here and there, trying to fit together the various accounts. And having followed his observations over the past few years, my opinion is that some things about this case just don’t add up. Make your own judgments, of course, but that’s my opinion.

I think of Josh as a moderate, but he does have a point of view, as you might gather from his writing and the advertisers who choose to patronize on his site. But so what? If I have doubts about the President’s honesty, who can I count on to be relentless in finding him out if not those who stand in principled opposition to him? The Republican congress? Broadcast news, which has an attention span measured in days if not hours? The Brits? Rush Limbaugh? Instapundit? townhall.com? I think not.

If I want to get the poop on Bush, I’m going to have to get it from places like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Talking Points Memo. In the absence of a truly independent and unbiased press (and let’s not kid ourselves here, we don’t have one) the only way to get a glimpse of the truth is to listen to voices from various opposing perspectives and tease out the facts from the noise. If a person only read Talking Points Memo, they’d have a skewed view of reality. But the same would be true if they only read townhall.com or Little Green Footballs.

We’ve yet to have a bipartisan investigation into the use or misuse of intelligence leading into the war. Many pundits have cited the earlier senate report as if it were authoritative in this regard, but as Josh points out, the report itself says…

“[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq’s weapons programs–not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information.”

So I’m glad that the Senate is finally getting the second part of their investigation off the ground now that Harry Reid has found his testicles. Or at least maybe they are, sort of. Why has it been taking so long again? It can be so difficult to know what is going on up there. (As an aside, if we had different parties controlling the congress and the executive branch, we’d likely have more vigorous oversight, and that would be a good thing. )

And why has the FBI been so lackadaisical in their investigation of Chalabi? And the Niger Forgeries? And what is all this funny business with Italian spies and forged documents? And how did a smart guy like Libby get himself in so much trouble when there shouldn’t have been anything to hide?

Taken as a whole, it doesn’t pass the sniff test.

BUT… as should be obvious by now, we do not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush knowingly told a falsehood. Some might even argue that, at least in a narrow technical sense, that what he said wasn’t false. I don’t agree with that latter part, but in any case, test three fails.

Test 4: Was It His Intent To Deceive?

Test four won’t matter unless we can somehow show beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush believed the information to be unreliable at the time he said it. And at this time, we can’t.

But I want to point out that test four is easy if we can prove test three. Knowingly stating misleading or inaccurate information in the context of a State of the Union speech is a clear indicator of intent to deceive, unless it was to protect a state secret, and I don’t think that was the case here. He wasn’t telling a joke around the water cooler. He knew that people would take him seriously.

So, the only thing between Bush and a guilty verdict is test three.

The Verdict: Presumed Innocent

I say presumed innocent because I think the investigation should continue.

And let me continue into the realm of speculation. We’re now outside the framework in which we’ve been working, so I’m free to share my guess as to what actually happened.

Bush, like most people, thought it was a safe bet that Saddam was up to something and he gambled that playing a little loose with intelligence was never going to come back to haunt him. He didn’t heed well those who cautioned him, or maybe he trusted his close advisors too closely and they didn’t pass those warnings on.

If my guess is right, would that be a lie? We’d have to do some hand-waving to get around test three, because my guess presumes that Bush actually did believe Saddam was looking to build out his nuclear program. For that matter, I suspected Saddam myself, but I wasn’t President and didn’t have the most extensive intelligence network on the planet at my disposal.

Reckless? Yup. Negligent? I think so. A lie? Well, lie is such an ugly word…

In a future episode: The Case of the Plame Affair

Did Bush Lie?

Recently I’ve been enjoying an interesting exchange of views with Sean Gleeson over at his blog. Earlier today, Sean wrote that I…

“…live in an alternate universe, where an evil George Bush stole two elections, told a bunch of lies, started a war, shredded the Bill of Rights, and tortured prisoners”

If it is indeed true that I live in an alternate universe, then I am gravely disappointed that it does not feature starships, talking robots, and lightsabers. I hope that if I were going to live in a world of my own imagining, then I would do better than this.

Sean then goes on to present a nifty flowchart for determining whether or not Bush has lied. The flowchart can be represented as four questions, or “tests,” as he calls them:

  • Test 1: DID HE SAY IT?
  • Test 2: WAS IT UNTRUE?
  • Test 3: DID HE KNOW IT WAS UNTRUE?
  • Test 4: WAS IT HIS INTENT TO DECEIVE?

If the answer to all of these questions is “definitely,” then it is concluded that President Bush lied. If even one of the tests fails, then President Bush is presumed innocent. Based on Sean’s earlier comments, I assume that “definitely” here means “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Fair enough. Tests 1 and 2 are questions of observable fact, though not as straightforward in practice as we might expect, as we shall see. Given the same evidence, reasonable people would hopefully agree on the results of tests 1 and 2. But tests 3 and 4 require the observer to make judgments about President Bush’s internal state of mind. Nobody other than the President can know his mind with certainty, so reasonable people might disagree on the results of tests 3 and 4.

Sean then goes on to apply the four tests to three different cases, in each instance concluding that Bush did not lie. Let us see how I calculate these tests, and whether or not Sean and I inhabit different realities.

THE CASE OF HARRIET MIERS

At an October 4, 2005 press conference, the following exchange took place:

QUESTION: Mr. President, of all of the people in the United States you had to choose from, is Harriet Miers the most qualified to serve on the Supreme Court?

BUSH: Yes. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have put her on.

Test 1: Did He Say It?

It is a matter of public record. Yes.

Test 2: Was It Untrue?

In other words, did Bush have a viable option to pick someone who was more qualified to serve on the Supreme Court?

Well, considering only judicial qualifications, there were many other candidates who were more qualified and would likely have been willing to serve. Indeed, I am very put off (but sadly not surprised) by Democrats who seemed open to Miers but are now advocating filibuster of Alito. If either of these candidates deserves a filibuster, it would be Miers, who may be a fine human being but is clearly not the intellectual peer of Roberts. As I noted in an earlier post, I like my Supreme Court justices to be supremely competent.

But there are other qualifications that Bush must consider. For example, there was some expectation that he would nominate a woman. There were also the political constraints imposed by the confirmation process. And of course Bush probably felt various other pressures from his constituents and advisors.

So in his mind at least, it seems at least possible that Harriet Miers was the most qualified candidate he could choose. This doesn’t make Bush a liar. It just makes him a bad judge of acceptable qualifications for a Supreme Court justice.

But we are only after the question of whether or not Bush has lied. If this to become a catalog of Mr. Bush’s incompetence, we shall be at it a very long time!

The Verdict: Innocent

THE CASE OF THE SIXTEEN WORDS

During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said:

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Test 1: Did He Say It?

It is a matter of public record that President Bush said these words. But I think that by saying these words in this context, President Bush was also saying that this information was reliable.

An analogy might be helpful here. Suppose that Sam the used car salesman tells me that “Mike the mechanic says this car runs fine.” What if Sam knows that the mechanic’s statement is untrue or misleading? For example, Sam’s statement would be factually true if Mike the mechanic had said, “this car runs fine, so long as you don’t go higher than second gear.” So did Sam lie in this case?

Well, since Sam offered this information in support of his argument that I should buy a car from him is he not, in that context, asserting that the information is accurate and reliable? I mean if it weren’t so, it wouldn’t do much to bolster his argument, would it? A reasonable person could in this case conclude that Sam’s statement, “Mike the mechanic says this car runs fine” was factual in a narrow sense but deliberately misleading and thus untrue. (We’ll talk more about intention later.)

Now one might at this point interject, “Caveat emptor! You knew that Sam was a used car salesman! You should have questioned Mike the mechanic directly!” Perhaps, but I believe that we should hold our president to a higher standard than used car salesmen, especially when he is advocating war. And it is not as if I, a private citizen, have the means to question British intelligence directly.

If the President of the United States says “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” in a speech before the assembled houses of congress and the nation, then I can reasonably conclude, indeed I must conclude that he asserts this information is reliable. Otherwise he would not make the statement in that context, or he would have used different language.

Test 2: Was It Untrue?

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer on July 7, 2003:

“Now, we’ve long acknowledged — and this is old news, we’ve said this repeatedly — that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.”

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on July 11, 2003:

“What we’ve said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn’t have put this in the President’s speech — but that’s knowing what we know now.”

CIA Director George Tenet on July 11, 2003:

“These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.”

The President’s words were not true. A true statement would have been, “We have received reports from British intelligence that Saddam Hussein may have sought to purchase uranium from Niger, though significant doubt remains as to the credibility of this information.” If Bush had said these words instead, our inquiry into this case would end here.

So did Bush know the information was unreliable? That’s Test 3, and I won’t get to considering it until tomorrow at the earliest. Stay tuned…

How I’m Voting

Tomorrow is election day, and I won’t bore you will all my choices for city council, etc. but here are my picks for the Ohio state ballot issues:

Issue 1: Jobs for Ohio
I like some parts of it, but am generally put off by the idea of the government giving my tax dollars to corporations. If I wanted to do that, I’d just go down to Big Box Mart.

Issue 2: Early Voting
Sure.

Issue 3: Limiting Political Contributions and Reforming Campaign Finance
This issue is written very poorly, but I’m voting for it mainly because I favor limits on the influence of corporations and out-of-state organizations.

Issue 4: Independent Redistricting Process
Yes. I dislike jerrymandering by either party.

Issue 5: Independent Election Administration
Badly written, and will likely be challenged, but I am voting for it to show my support for the intent.

More information on the Ohio Ballot Issues is here.

Religion in Politics

Not long ago I added Sean Gleeson’s site to the list of sites I read. His posts are well written and thoughtful, and just recently he created a pretty nifty Flash version of Texas Hold’em poker.

Yesterday I responded to a post of his on religion in politics. And I responded to a second post today.

I considered reproducing my responses here, but then people are less likely to read Sean’s posts, and then my responses won’t make much sense (if they make any sense at all), so go have a look if you have any interest.

Pork Warmed Over

This editorial in the Washington Post is relevant to my post from a few days ago.

The money quote (literally):

…think about this spending in the larger context: Poor, mistreated Alaska. It ranks number one in per capita federal spending, $12,279 in 2003, compared with Nevada, number 50 at $5,235 for every resident. Alaskans received $1.89 in federal help for every tax dollar they sent to Washington, making the state second only to New Mexico as a net beneficiary of federal largess.

Maybe I need to take a trip to Alaska so that I can drive on all the roads and bridges and other crap that I’ve paid for.

Mmmm… Pork

This week, the senate considered a bill to cut back on porkbarrel spending and use that money to help pay for the cleanup and reconstruction of states affected by recent hurricanes.

Included in the proposed cuts was a $230 million dollar bridge in Alaska to an island with fifty residents. That’s almost $5 million per person. I vaguely recall reading elsewhere that this island has an airport on it. If that is so, then the problem isn’t that we need a bridge. The problem is that someone decided to build the airport on a friggin’ island! And you and I are paying for it.

So, anyway, this ammendment would cut this “bridge to nowhere” and some of the other more egregious pork and would be a welcome step towards sane fiscal policy.

The ammendment failed 82-15.

That’s right. Only fifteen senators voted to cut pork and use our tax dollars for better purposes. The rest of them presumably wanted to avoid setting any precendent that might result in cuts to their pork.

FOX News has the whole sad story.

The senators voting in favor of the ammendment:

  • Tom Coburn (R-OK)
  • Russ Feingold (D-WI)
  • Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
  • Jim DeMint (R-SC)
  • David Vitter (R-LA)
  • Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
  • John Sununu (R-NH)
  • Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
  • Richard Burr (R-NC)
  • Wayne Allard (R-CO)
  • Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
  • Evan Bayh (D-IN)
  • Mike DeWine (R-OH)
  • Kent Conrad (D-ND)
  • George Allen (R-VA)

I don’t blame the senators so much as the asshats citizens who vote to keep them in office. Senator DeWine has improved his chance of getting my vote next time he is up for re-election. Senator Voinovich… it’s not looking good for him right now.

It is particularly appalling that only five democrats voted for this ammendment. The ruling republicans are plagued by scandal right now, and our country suffers for lack of principled leadership. This is the perfect opportunity for the democrats to step up and show us what they are made of and, well… this unhappy episode illustrates why I am an independent.

It is probably too much even to hope for, but perhaps we are living in the days when the two-party system will finally give way to multiple, viable parties. I am weary of choosing the lesser evil.

Political Appointees Re-Write Commerce Department Report On Offshore Outsourcing

I heard about this one listening to Harry Shearer’s Le Show this afternoon. From the article itself:

The Commerce Department has responded to a half-year-old request by Manufacturing and Technology News for the release a long-awaited study on the issue of “offshore outsourcing” of IT service-sector jobs and high-tech industries. But the 12-page document represented by the agency as its final report is not what was written by its analysts. Rather, it was crafted by political appointees at Commerce and at the White House, according to those familiar with it.

At an estimated cost of $335,000 — or $28,000 per page — the document MTN received from the Commerce Department’s Technology Administration contains no original research and forsakes its initial intent of providing a balanced view of outsourcing, according to those inside and outside the agency.

The report was requested by Congress in an appropriations bill in December 2003, with a six-month deadline of June 2004. A 12-page version, entitled “Six-Month Assessment of Workforce Globalization In Certain Knowledge-Based Industries,” was released on September 8, 2005, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request that MTN had filed on March 17, 2005. The report, which carries a July 2004 date, has not been posted on the Technology Administration’s Web site and is not available to the public.

According to those who have tracked the report’s whereabouts, it was completed well before the November 2004 presidential election but was delayed for clearance by the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress due to the controversial nature of the subject. Outsourcing had become a contentious campaign issue, particularly in the swing states.

After the November election, a draft of the report prepared by a “braintrust” of Technology Administration analysts went into a vetting process among political appointees at the Commerce Department and White House. It never resurfaced. The analysts never received any feedback on their work, which is unusual, say those who have written similar reports.

The 12-page version that was released focuses on the allegedly positive impacts for the U.S. economy of the offshore outsourcing — and “insourcing” — of jobs in the IT, semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries, argue those who have read it. The report quotes research conducted by organizations and individuals that have been funded by multinationals that benefit from shifting jobs overseas. No mention is made of the conflict of interest inherent in the studies cited by the Commerce report.

I suggest reading the whole article. If you haven’t been affected by outsourcing already, you will be. I’m not against outsourcing, but I do believe that economic transitions like this should be managed carefully. Free economies are efficient, but they are not necessarily fair. If you are going to change the rules so drastically, you need to give people the time and means to adjust.

From the end:

“The U.S. government is different from most other countries because most other countries are taking this very seriously and are trying to think through where this global shift of call centers and rather sophisticated service types of activities and mental labor is going to be located in the next 20 years,” says Kenney. “How does one position one’s economy and one’s educational system, particularly at the university level, to make sure that you can continue to add value at a sufficient level to keep you as an advanced developed country? The United States seems to be treating this even more cavalierly than it treated the relocation of manufacturing, which has been very important for the rise of China as a new global superpower.”

Services are expected to generate even more value than manufacturing “and are the basis of another major global shift,” says Kenney, author of the 2003 book “Locating Global Advantage: Industry Dynamics in the International Economy.” “To ignore what’s happening won’t mean it won’t happen — but, on the other hand, it will prevent you from having to do anything. It’s pretty amazing that the government would put out something like that report.”

As Harry Shearer pointed out in his broadcast, it not amazing at all that the Bush administration used political hackery to favor big business instead of pursuing effective policy based on available facts. This is a well-established pattern with this administration, and it is to our collective shame that so little has been done to bring it to light.

Incidentaly, I highly recommend Le Show as an antidote to the loud, nonsensical blathering that passes for talk radio these days. If you don’t get it locally or can’t tune in, you can listen to past episodes on Shearer’s site. Today’s progam wasn’t online as of today, but will be soon. The call from 41 to 43 was particularly hilarious.

Chief Justice Roberts

John Roberts began his tenure as chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United Stated today.

Roberts was a fine choice. His nomination came as a pleasant surprise. Bush deserves credit for nominating a highly qualified candidate.

I’m much less optimistic about Bush’s second nominee, Harriet Miers. Her main qualification seems to be her loyalty to Bush and his familiarity with her based on long history. It smacks of cronyism.

I don’t think that justices should be selected based on ideology or political ties, but on their knowledge of and respect for the law and established precedent. Ideology should come into consideration only to the extent that it would impair the candidate’s objectivity.

Of course, no human can be perfectly objective. Being even reasonably objective is difficult, and that is why supreme court justices should be supremely competent, by way of nature and training, in striving for objectivity. They must be committed to finding the answer most in accordance with the constitution and with precedent, even if they don’t like the answer.

I was dissappointed that some democratic senators voted against Roberts seemingly out of obeisance to left-leaning special interest groups. Even more dissappointing were the attacks on democratic senators who supported Roberts.

Senator Barack Obama posted on his weblog about this:

… A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don’t think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn’t swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster — a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations — blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn’t become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution’s design.

I disagree with Senator Obama’s decision to vote against Roberts, and I think he might be trying to have it both ways. But I believe he voted his concience and I applaud his advocacy of independent, informed consideration, rather than slavish adherance to the party line or special interests.

2005 Tomato Taste Off

This year we grew a large number of tomato varieties, hoping to find a few that are tasty and grow well in our microclimate.

The tomatoes didn’t do well this year. Yield was late and not very heavy, and the tomatoes we did have were watery. It’s not clear why. The weather was hot enough. We didn’t get much rain, but that wouldn’t explain the watery taste. It could be a lack of nitrogen, although tomatoes generally do best with only moderate nitrogen.

We may never solve that mystery, but we at least got enough tomatoes to have our tomato taste off. I cut up the tomatoes and numbered the samples, and Noelle and a friend and I each tried some. The taster was blind in each case, and asked to rank the tomatoes from best to worst, with the option to taste them again if needed. We did the small tomatoes and big tomatoes as separate tastings.

So, here are the results:

Smaller Tomatoes

Winners - Will Grow Next Year

  • Black Cherry - Early, heavy yield of maroon cherry tomatoes with amazingly rich flavor. We all ranked this one best for taste.
  • San Marzano - Good paste tomato

Losers - these were OK, but not special

  • Royal Red Cherry
  • Tiger Tom
  • Principe Borghese - meant for drying, but black cherry does as well and tastes better

Larger Tomatoes

Winners

  • Moskvitch - early with rich taste, hard to beat
  • Little Lucky - tied with Moskvitch for best taste, but different flavor
  • Pink Brandywine - not as good as reputed, but still good. Can’t wait to taste it in a good year.

Losers - these were OK, but bland and a little watery

  • Striped German - grew this one last year and think it was better then. I may give it one more try.
  • Mortgage Lifter
  • Pruden’s Purple - same as for Striped German
  • Big Rainbow

Special (bad) Mention: Oregon Spring
The Oregon Spring varieity was bred to mature in cool weather. While I applaud the effort, after growing this variety and tasting it, my advice is: wait until it warms up or get a greenhouse. Each of us ranked this one dead last. The taste was insipid. Blech.

I got almost all of my tomato seeds this year from Victory Seeds, and recommend them. Prices are reasonable, quality and service are good, and they offer a huge selection of heirloom tomato varieties. Those not from Victory are probably from Johnny’s.

More Gratuitous Baby Photos

You know you want ‘em…

I'm not diggin' any more unless you are paying me double time!
I’m not diggin’ any more unless you are paying me double time!

This my fat elvis impersonation.
This is my fat elvis impersonation.

Mmmm... hat.
Mmmm… hat.

Yeah, I'm cool.
Yeah, I’m cool.

There is no spoon.
There is no spoon.

Thank you, thank you!  I'm here through Thursday.
Thank you, thank you! I’m here through Thursday.

Whaddya mean I'm too young for lacrosse?
Whaddya mean I’m too young for lacrosse?

This must be the key that unlocks the room where my real parents are held prisoner.
This must be the key that unlocks the room where my real parents are held captive.

m90509 m90510 m90511
At first I was afraid I’d have to eat that orange stuff. But then I realized that they couldn’t really tell if I did or not.

m90512 m90513
I’m gonna crawl! … right after a nap.

Mr. Cup, meet Mr. Block.
Mr. Cup, meet Mr. Block.

How not to take a photo of yourself.
How not to take a photo of yourself.

Sleepy
Sleepy

m90520 m90521 m90522
I’ve eaten your stupid sweet potatoes, now gimme some chips and a soda!

m90530 m90531 m90532 m90533 m90534
Blue eyes.

2005 Summer Garden Photo Restrospective

Most of the photos in this post were taken on July 30th. This was a good time for taking photos, with many things at their peak.

I’ve put the front-yard photos (mostly flowers) first, and the back-yard (food crop) photos second. Otherwise, they are in no particular order. To save time, I’m not consulting any references. If I know the scientific name for something (or forget the common name) I may include it, but I don’t guarantee accuracy. If you want more info on something, drop me a note.

amaranth
This is the first year I’ve grown amaranth, but it won’t be the last. These plants are large and showy, growing to 6′ tall or more. This particular variety (Burgundy from Seeds of Change) has deep red veins, stalks and blossoms. The blossoms and seed heads last well into fall, but may need to be staked. Mine were not staked, and I cut them down a couple weeks ago because they were falling over. I also didn’t want all that seed to end up in the flower bed.

bach button
Bachelor Buttons. The flowers are pretty, but the plants are scraggly and didn’t do much past July. They don’t seem to care for the heat. Might put some of these in the back for cut flowers next year, but not in the front yard.

bee balm
Bee Balm, or Monarda, (var. Panorama Red Shades from Johnny’s) a perennial in the mint family. It wasn’t supposed to bloom the first year, but it got an early start, so I guess it did anyway.

borage borage close
I’ve grown Borage once before, but it didn’t do much, so I didn’t get a good look at it. The seed packet says “the plant stays attractive a long time.” Attractive to bees perhaps, but not to me. There are about eight borage plants planted around a young paw-paw tree here, and that is about six too many. It will go in the back yard next year. Aside from keeping bees fed, the leaves and flowers are edible, with a cucumbery flavor.

butterfly weed
Butterfly Weed, Aclepias Tuberosa. We are growing this to help out Monarch butterflies, which must feed on milkweed as caterpillars. There are fancier milkweed species, but this one is native to the area and should be carefree. This is another perennial that was not expected to bloom the first year. This is not always a good sign; in some species it can be a symptom of stress. I don’t know if that was the case here.

cardoon
Cardoon blossoms. Cardoon is the species of thistle from which globe artichokes are thought to have been bred. The leaf and flower stalks are eaten rather than the flower buds. We have not tried them yet, and by the time the plant flowers it is probably too tough to be good eating. Since this photo was taken some young shoots have come up that we may try before the frost claims them. But I mainly grew it as an ornamental. The cardoon, along with the amaranths got the most stares and questions. A showy plant, but it isn’t truly happy in this hot climate and it also isn’t hardy. Next year I’ll probably put a different ornamental in front and continue to grow artichokes in back. I can always let some of the artichokes flower if I want to see these blooms again.

okra okra closeup
This is the first year I’ve grown Okra and what little we had we enjoyed. The problem was that we never had more than a few fresh pods at a time. The plants set pods in succession, and if you don’t catch them right away they are soon too big and tough to be good eating. We’d go out to find plenty of pods, but most of them too big. This heirloom variety, Aunt Hettie’s Stays Red from Victory Seed, is a nice ornamental, but next year I am going to grow Okra in the main garden and try one of the varieties bred to be more productive, with pods that hold longer on the plant.

dirt yard zinnia elephant head
I tilled up my tree lawn this spring with the plan of cultivating it multiple times to deplete the weed seeds and kill perennial weeds without resorting to Round Up. A fine plan, except that we had little rain and so the weed seeds were slow to germinate. So I never got around to planting it. It’s still dirt now, and likely to stay that way until spring. The zinnias, a variety from Seeds of Change, have been amazing, blooming non-stop from June. And the Elephant Head amaranth has literally stopped traffic on occassion. Both are planted around American Elm trees that will shade this area many years from now. Until then there will be sun for growing annuals like these.

mums
Sungiku edible Chrysanthemum. They do have an interesting taste, but they aren’t showy plants. A smaller number will go in the back yard next year to be snipped for salads.

mountain mint
Mountain Mint. It is in the mint family as the name implies but not as invasive as true mints. I find the flavor to be inferior to true mints, but it does smell good and, as you can see from this photo, the bees love it.

calendula
Calendula grows best in cool weather, and even with some shade from an ash tree in this spot and some deadheading, they were mostly done by the end of July. Next year I may plant some in back.

chaste berry
A small Chaste Tree. Pretty blue blossoms are fairly plentiful, especially given that this is a first-year planting. The berries play a role in folk remedies.

rudbecia
Black-eyed Susan, Rudbeckia hirta, growing around one of the three young paw paw trees.

sunflowers
A variety of sunflowers growing beside the burgundy amaranth.

delphinum
Delphinium doesn’t like the oppressive heat here in Ohio, and I didn’t treat these seedlings very carefully. But before they died, a few of them offered up some blooms of the most gorgeous blue. It’s enough to make me want to live in Oregon.

creeping thyme
Creeping Thyme and Johnny Jump Up in the rock garden that borders our driveway. The thyme got off to a slow start but seems to be happy now.

hollyhocks
Hollyhock and Blanket Flower seedlings waiting to be planted. These will flower in 2006, and since this photo was taken have leafed out nicely. Hopefully we’ll have a good show next year.

strawberries strawberries close bowl of strawberries
Our bed of everbearing strawberries did so-so this year. We got plenty of strawberries, but the size was small. Part of it may be that I didn’t keep the blossoms pruned off until the July as one is supposed to do with a new planting. But I also suspect a shortage of nitrogen. The soil here has almost none to start with, and I don’t think I fertlized these enough when I put them in. I’ll have to add some cottonseed meal this fall.

pears
I almost cut down this pear tree thinking it would never amount to anything, but Noelle persuaded me to leave it be and I’m glad she did. It is a small, old, tree but we got maybe four dozen medium-sized pears this year and they are delicious. (Last year there were only a handlful of pears and the oppossum ate those.)

parsnips
Root crops for this fall and winter. From front to back: scorzonera, salsify, parsnips, belgian endive, root parsley. The thing I like about these roots crops is that you plant them once in spring and, aside from a little weeding, you can pretty much ignore them until they are ready to eat, and they store well for a long time in the ground or in a root cellar.

sunchokes
Boy, those sunchokes sure are pretty. Last week I dug up a few to see how many we have. I planted five pounds of sunchokes, and while I didn’t use a scale to weigh my sample, I estimate that we now have a hojillion pounds of sunchokes. We have enough sunchokes that if you dig up too many, you just throw the extras out.

We also (re-)discovered the hard way that freshly-dug sunchokes have their calories in an undigestible form called inulin. If you don’t give the tubers some time to convert this inulin to starch, the aftermath of eating them can be… unfortunate.

grapes
Grape vines that I planted this spring. All of them are seedless, and suitable for both fresh eating and simple wine-making. Hopefully we will get a few grapes next year, but grapes don’t start full production until the third or fourth year.

dead cabbage kale
I planted these cabbages and other cole crops in mid-July, and it was just too damn hot for them. The larger ones towards the back only survived (I’m guessing) because of the afternoon shade offered by the sunflowers next to them. Next year I need to provide shade and more water if I want to plant cole crops that early. Successively later plantings, like the kale seedlings shown here, have done progressively better. And over the past two weeks or so all the cole crops have taken off as the weather has cooled.

peppers aconagua peppers hhw peppers paprika
Various peppers. I believe the varieties are Aconagua, Hot Hungarian Wax and Boldog Hungarian Paprika. Yield on peppers was lite this year. I suspect not enough nitrogen.

eggplant
Lousiana Long Green eggplant. We only had five plants this year, and that was about enough. We didn’t get to all of them, but not too many went to waste either.

tomatos tom close1 toms close3 toms close4
The tomatoes were disappointing this year in terms of yield and taste. Not sure exactly why. But Noelle and I did have our little tomato taste off, which I’ll post about separately.

squash close.
Flying Saucer summer squash. These are pretty but the yield was not much and the eating quality so-so. Next year I want to try some old-fashioned yellow crookneck.

mantis caterpillar
One of the benefits of avoiding pesticides as much as possible is the diversity of insect life it allows. Here we have a praying mantis and a beautiful caterpillar that apparently likes carrots.

On Patterns

Patterns have been on my mind of late, and not in a good way.

I am no expert on patterns, and that is probably because I am wary of them. I tend to come to my designs intuitively, letting the constraints bounce around in my skull until something resonates. For me, patterns seem to get in the way most of the time. But I do look to patterns when I find myself stuck, and it is mind-broadening to read about them without any particular problem in mind.

That said, I encounter patterns often in the work of others, and my sad conclusion is that many architects and developers seem to think that good architecture is about using as many patterns as possible. And certain patterns seem to be considered mandatory if one is designing, say, a web application.

And this is just plain wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong! To be fair, I doubt that the guilty parties are aware of their wrongdoing, and they could truthfully claim that “everyone is doing it,” but I wish it would stop.

Good design is about satisfying the constraints under which the solution must perform. Patterns are tools for thinking about design, for talking about design, and for preserving and communicating practices that have worked well in previous situations.

But there is nothing, nothing, inherently virtuous about using a pattern. The only criteria for judging the quality of a design should be how well it satisfies the requirements. If one arrives at a good design using no patterns at all, it is still a good design. (Of course, one could probably find patterns in such a design, but that shows my point: the design and the merit thereof exist independently of any patterns.)

I read Christopher Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form a few years back, and one of the passages that stuck with me was this:

Indeed, since the book was published, a whole academic field has grown up around the idea of ‘design methods’ – and I have been hailed as one of the leading exponents of these so-called design methods. I am very sorry that this has happened, and want to state, publicly, that I reject the whole idea of design methods as a subject of study, since I think it is absurd to separate the study of designing from the practice of design. In fact, people who study design methods without also practicing design are almost all frustrated designers who have no sap in them, who have lost, or never had, the urge to shape things. Such a person will never be able to say anything sensible about ‘how’ to shape things either.

And while I am not sure he meant the same thing, I think that what he describes is essentially what is happening with patterns in computing: Architects are confusing the patterns with the design, and the design is suffering for it. One cannot substitute a bookish knowledge of patterns for an intuitive understanding of the problem to be solved and the various domains of knowledge from which the solution will draw.

In summary, an architect should never use a pattern without a clear and understanding of why that pattern is advantageous for the specific design at hand, even if the usage is considered common practice.

There, I have spoken! I’m sure the world is hastily rearranging itself to conform to my proclamation and trembling in anticipation of my next utterance… ;-)

Scalzi on the News, Plus the Funniest Damn Thing Ever

I had been wanting to comment on recent events, but Scalzi beat me to it, so, at the risk of seeming like some sort of ditto-head, I’ll just link to his post here.

Also, I can’t remember the last time I laughed this hard.

Islam

A metathingy reader forwards me a chain mail with the preface, “Don’t know how true this is, but I’d be interested in your opinion on your metathingy web site.” Always happy to be of service, so here goes:

This is a must read - it’s short but very informative!

It’s only the first sentence, and the Bullshit detector is already going off.

The Muslim religion in the fastest growing religion
per capita in the United States, especially in the
minority races!!!

A Google search on “fastest growing religion” gives mixed results. Some sources agree, some do not. This seems like an example of how to lie with statistics. This article had an interesting take:

‘’Right now, the fastest-growing religious identity in America is the nonreligious,'’ says Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis.-based group that champions church-state separation and works to educate the public on nontheism.

A study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 16 percent of Americans (about 35 million) consider themselves ‘’unaffiliated'’ — a category that includes ‘’unaffiliated believers,'’ ‘’secularists'’ and atheists/agnostics.

I would include myself in the nonreligious category, so I was happy to see the article continue with a pretty accurate description of my own beliefs:

In a nutshell, atheists believe in reason alone, in those things that can be arrived at through intellect and the scientific method. Concrete evidence for God, they argue, simply doesn’t exist. They don’t cotton to leaps of faith or anything that involves a supernatural being reaching into human lives. They believe you can live a happy, respectable life based on human ethics that were derived from a code of rules that emerged naturally through an evolutionary process in which humans learned how to live together. [emphasis mine]

‘And to anyone who really believes they would actually steal or murder if there simply was no God, I would say, `Please, keep your religion,’ ‘’ quips Bobbie Kirchart, president of Atheist Alliance International.

In any case, the chain mail author’s words “especially in the
minority races!!!” give a pretty clear indication that we are headed for some of that good old-timey hate mongering. Let us trudge on…

Allah or Jesus? by Rick Mathes

Last month I attended my annual training session
that’s required for maintaining my state prison
security clearance. During the training session there
was a presentation by three speakers representing the
Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who
explained each of their belief systems

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam
had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the
basics of Islam, complete with a video.

After the presentations, time was provided for
questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the
Imam and asked: “Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but
I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam
have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the
infidels of the world. And, that by killing an
infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are
assured of a place in heaven. If that’s the case, can
you give me the definition of an infidel?”

There was no disagreement with my statements and,
without hesitation, he replied, “Non-believers!”

I responded, “So, let me make sure I have this
straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded
to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can
go to Heaven. Is that correct?”

The ____expression on his face changed from one of
authority and command to that of a little boy who had
just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He
sheepishly replied, “Yes.”

I then stated, “Well, sir, I have a real problem
trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all
Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr.Stanley
ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to
Heaven!”

So, let’s just forget about all that nasty business with the Crusades? And in more recent centuries the Church’s sanction of the slaughter of various native peoples? Much blood has been shed in the name of both Jesus and Muhammad over the centuries. While the Pope may have no plans to call for another crusade any time soon, we should not be so quick to forget our history.

The Imam was speechless.

I continued, “I also have problem with being your
friend when you and your brother clerics are telling
your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question.
Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill
me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me
to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants
you to be with me?” You could have heard a pin drop as
the Imam hung his head in shame.

Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of
the ‘Diversification’ training seminar were not happy
with Rick’s way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and
exposing the truth about the Muslim’s beliefs.

If this really happened as the author states, why would the organizers be unhappy? Sounded like a reasonable exchange to me. My guess is that the author here is attempting to discredit other witnesses to the exchange so that the reader will not believe a conflicting account of the event. But really, it is hard for me to imagine corrections officials objecting to the exchange as presented.

I think everyone in the US should be required to read
this, but with the liberal justice system, liberal
media, and the ACLU, there is no way this will be
widely publicized. Please pass this on to all your
e-mail contacts.

Hoo-boy, here we go! Full-on right-wing hate-mongering. I really wonder how much longer people will continue to tolerate this stuff as it becomes more and more disconnected from reality.

We have FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, a male prostitute hired by Republican activists to lob softball questions to the white house press secretary using fake press credentials from the same white house, and fake news segments produced with taxpayer dollars to make the current administration look good. We have an army of conservative asshats pundits that dutifully recite the talking points from Rove’s latest memo. And that’s a liberal media? Our liberal supreme court gave Bush the presidency? Allowed him to walk all over the bill of rights? How far does the pendulum have to swing before people stop buying this crap?

As an aside, word is that Jeff Gannon is gay. Which is nothing, except that he was hired to publicly support a party and administration that are generally hostile to gay interests. So there would seem to be big heaping helpings of irony and hypocrisy on both sides of that transaction. I guess Jeff really is a whore.

As for the ACLU, if its detractors earnestly studied the ACLU’s actions and positions, they would find that the ACLU’s mission is the protection of our precious individual freedoms, such as free speech and freedom to practice whatever religion we choose. If protecting our individual freedoms happens to coincide with “liberal” politics more than “conservative” politics, then that to me says more about the politics than the ACLU.

In particular, the ACLU protects us from assclowns people who would impose their ideologies on us, like the author of this chain-mail who thinks “everyone in the US should be required to read” his little note.

The chain-mail ends with this:

This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a
well known leader in prison ministry

“This is a true story.” Riiiiiight. Any email that includes both “This is a true story” and “Please pass this on” is bound to be a load of hooey, but let’s go back to Google just to be sure.

Urban Ledgends has the goods.

First off, the Iman was no Imam at all:

According to Tim Kniest, Public Information Officer for the Missouri Department of Corrections, the event described was a training program for prison volunteers, for which ministers from several faiths were invited to give presentations in order to acquaint prison volunteers with the varied religious beliefs of the inmate population. The man who gave the presentation about Islam was not a Muslim minister; he was an inmate pressed into service to present a short film on Islam and answer some questions when the prison’s Volunteer Coordinator was “unable to find an Imam to speak.”

And another witness disputes the account:

. . the Volunteer Coordinator at the prison said that no such exchange as the editorial reported ever took place. “He certainly did not ‘Hang his head in shame’,” according to Kniest. In fact, the inmate was thanked by the assembly before being escorted back to his quarters. Furthermore, the coordinator does not recall any questions dealing with jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world as reported in the editorial.

Whatever actually happened, when asked to confirm his account, Mr. Mathes provided additional context that made the exchange seem quite different than what is presented in the chain mail:

…I questioned him (Imam) really to get a clear refutation of what is commonly thought of this Jihad nonsense. But apparently he wasn’t educated enough to rebut my remarks or by his silence on this matter (I think) concurred with my implied conclusions. In either case I was surprised. And when I said I found it hard to be his friend, everyone laughed out loud. So the mood was an amazing mix of those who were interested like me and others that were just amused by the whole thing. I left the matter open on purpose (the truth will prevail) so that either side could speak up and claim the truth as their own

Another examination can be found here and a repy from a real Imam (apparently) is here.

So, what really happened?

Well, I think that Mr. Mathes is guilty of some poetic license in his editorial, and whoever crafted the chain mail added their own embroidery. Both were trying to support their cause, and however well meaning they might have been they apparently believed that a little misrepresentation is OK if the end justifies the means. I guess God must have been kidding about that whole “Thou shall not bear false witness” commandment business.

My own, admittedly uninformed, opinion on Islam and recent history: Muslim leaders and adherents have a responsibility to denounce the acts of violence being done in the name of The Prophet. It is not enough to say, “That is not Islam.” I have so far been disappointed in their response. Christian leaders should similarly speak out against the tremendous loss of life caused by our actions in Iraq and elsewhere.

If people are going to practice a religion, or claim to, then they should actually follow the tenets of the religion. If more people actually followed the uncorrupted teachings of Jesus or Muhammad then the world would be a better place. But few followers even understand their professed faith, let alone adhere to it, and the people who claim to be their religious leaders have done little to set their flock back on the straight and narrow path.

And let me also point out that this sort of hypocrisy is rampant among so-called “religious conservatives.” John Scalzi’s posts on this are excellent:

Leviticans
What My Jesus Would Do
Reaffirming Christianity

My advice: Learn to think for yourself. Be fair and honest in all your dealings. Do good work. And not least, don’t believe what you read in chain emails!

How to Handle It When Things Go Wrong

So I went to make a post this evening, and found that the site was down. I checked the status page of my hosting provider, TextDrive, and found this helpful post explaining that my server was down, what was known about the problem, and what was being done about it.

Thanks to this transparency, I didn’t waste any time trying to troubleshoot the problem on my end. I was also grateful that they had indentified the problem and communicated the status without any action from me. Shortly afterwards, the server was back up and ready to use.

In order for all of this to happen as it did, TextDrive had to be prepared with competent people and adequate infrastructure. They also had to actively monitor the situation looking for problems as soon as they could be detected.

With the exception of one minor hiccup early on, I have been happy with TextDrive. If I were not satisfied, I’d have fired them and hired someone else.

Too bad certain other organizations don’t work that way.

What She Said

Maureen Dowd, in the Times today. (Hat tip to Jason Merchey) I’m no liberal, and I’m sure I disagree with Ms. Dowd on many matters of policy, but in this case she gets the nod. And of course, if you want the full run down, there’s no better place to go than Josh Marshall’s site.

There are a ton of other links I could post, but why bother? John Scalzi was right back in 2004 when he wrote that Bush’s supporters are either ignorant, hypocritical, or just plain stupid. He’s still right today. It’s not pleasant, but there is no other explanation that is consistent with observable facts. It is not a matter of opinion.

Suppose Bush were to appoint a political hack and campaign supporter to be Secretary of Animal Protection. Let’s call him Ivan. Suppose the major TV networks showed candid, recent video of Ivan eating live kittens and puppies. And let’s suppose that Bush, in response, said “Ivan is doing a damn fine job.” Let’s even suppose that it later emerges that Ivan was a known puppy eater before Bush appointed him.

What would happen?

Rush would shout that the evidence was all forged documents. The White House press secretary would accuse the press of “playing the blame game.” The rest of the right wing noise machine would recite Rove’s talking points, claiming that Ivan is the victim of polticially motivated attacks that distract us from the serious work of protecting kittens and puppies. And apparently some 40% or more of us would buy it.

I say 40% becase polls show that at least that many people think that Bush & Co. are doing a good job.

Unfortunately, the problem isn’t that Bush is an ass clown. Half of us knew that before he was re-elected. The problem is that ass clowns vote.

Random Melon Links

I’m still on hiatus for another week or so. But I came across these links on controlling cucumber beetles in melons, and they gave me some ideas for next.

The links about using a squash planting as a trap crop. Squash are more resistant to bacterial wilt, so you still have the benefit of a squash crop. You need to spray the squash when the bugs arrive, but you don’t have to spray the melons as much once the row covers are removed.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3741/is_n9_v45/ai_19934864
http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/commhort/1998-08/1998-08-04.html

Another interesting possibility is an early, dense planting of melons or squash that are uncovered early and treated once they have attracted the beetles and then destroyed and replanted with a different crop when the main crop is in flower.

I have a cold-frame full of melon vines in the garden right now and have been trying to hand-pollinate them. This has kept them free of wilt, but I don’t think my efforts have worked. I’m likely to take off the cover this weekend and let the bees go at it. Probably too late, but we’ll see.

Another problem with the cold frame is that it really crowds the vines and it becomes hard to keep them in. A trellis would be nicer to work with, but is not so easy to cover. I’m thinking that perhaps I could just drape the trellis in plastic when rain is due, as wilt generally needs water to spread. But I also need a system that takes little time to operate.

Still plenty of time to decide. Or better yet, I may try a few different ways and see what works best.

As is probably obvious by now, I like melons!

The Big Easy

I’m still buried, but I wanted to say a few things about the unfolding tragedy. Fortunately, Mr. Scalzi has done the job for me, better than I ever could have.

Not dead - yet!

As you may have noticed, I have been scarce around here of late. That is likely to continue for the next week or two as I catch up on some things for work and around the house.

Random news:

My nephew Cody came down to visit this past weekend, and I had fun. But never take up any offer to play racing games on the Nitendo with him. It will end badly for you.

Mira has her first two teeth, and she’s had her first bites of solid food. (Carrots.)

Summer garden is about done. It was a decent year. The fall and winter garden is starting to shape up. More on that later.

Bush administration still incompetent and corrupt.

See you in a week or two.

Next Page »