Mitch Wagner's Blog

I'm blogging somewhere else now

At least for a little while, just to try out the platform (it's called Tumblr). The new URL:

MitchWagner.Tumblr.com

Join us tomorrow to kick off Copper Robot!

Our first program of the new Second Life interview show Copper Robot kicks off tomorrow (Sunday) at 11 am SLT, with well-known SL artist Eshi Otawara. Eshi, along with a couple of friends to help her tell her story, will talk about her RL problems with US immigration, as she was nearly deported from America because of an obscure clause in the law called the "widow's penalty." Also: A Few Minutes Of Crap, with Crap Mariner.

SLURL

Eshi is a fashion designer and artist in SL. In real life, she's an American immigrant from Eastern Europe who had to fight to stay in this country after her husband died abruptly, less than two years after they were married. We'll talk to Eshi about her story, and what she's been doing since she finally got her green card. If you want to read up on Eshi beforehand, read the New World Notes article on Eshi getting her green card, and my earlier article in InformationWeek about her predicament.

Can't make it to the show? No problem, we'll make it available as a podcast on the Copper Robot Blog, where you can also keep up with updates to the show. (At some point, I'll probably stop posting updates here, and just link in the sidebar, as I do with my InformationWeek articles).

You can also keep up by subscribing to our Google Group, or join the Copper Robot group in Second Life.

See you tomorrow!

What movies have you watched over and over again?

Mauricio asks, on FriendFeed: "“What movie have you watched over and over again the most often? I'm an 'Office Space' kinda guy.”

I failed to read instructions, and picked more than one. I picked a lot more than one.

Die Hard
Back to the Future
Back to the Future 2
Back to the Future 3
Dazed and Confused
High Fidelity
Love Actually
A Christmas Story
Office Space
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Clerks
Clerks 2
Mallrats
Chasing Amy
Jersey Girl
Dogma
Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back
The Godfather
Nobody's Fool
Office Space
Galaxy Quest
My Favorite Year
Almost Famous
Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid
O Brother Where Art Thou
True Grit
Wonder Boys
That Thing You Do
The Mummy
The Fifth Element

I watched "Eternal Sunshine" of the Spotless Mind three times the day I saw it.

I've only seen "Beautiful Girls" once, but that was recently and I liked it so much I have a feeling it's going into the rotation.

Everybody else in the world has a podcast. Now I do too.

It's a new year, and time for a new Second Life project.

Way back in the misty prehistory of 2007 and early 2008, I did an interview program in Second Life for InformationWeek called GridTalk. Our guests included Biz Stone, who was then launching a new service called Twitter. We also had science fiction writers Charles Stross, Joe Haldeman, and notable people from inside the Second Life community. I had a great time doing it, and it was pretty popular in Second Life -- but it became apparent that this wasn't something InformationWeek should be involved in. It just didn't seem like something the InformationWeek audience was hugely interested in. At least not yet.

So I killed GridTalk.

But I missed doing the interviews, and late last year I decided to start an interview program that wasn't affiliated with InformationWeek.

I got together with a couple of my Second Life friends, and we decided to launch Copper Robot. It'll be available in Second Life, or for later download as a podcast. We're working on setting up a live, Web audio stream as well.

Our first episode is Sunday, Jan. 11 -- that's a week from today. Am I nervous? No, of course I'm not nervous -- my palms are normally this sweaty.

The format will be talk. Just talk. I love shows like Fresh Air, and This American Life, and the old Tomorrow show from the 1970s, where interesting people just sit around and have a conversation about interesting things.

We'll talk about anything I'm interested in: Technology, politics, literature, television, science fiction, science, LOLcats, business, Twitter, Facebook, Second Life, and more.

Our first guest: Eshi Otawara, a talented and well-known Second Life artist who recently overcame some real-life problems with U.S. immigration law -- she faced deportation from America because her husband died before the government processed her application for legal residency. We'll find out from Eshi how she's doing and what she's up to in Second Life and in the atomic world since she won her green chard. We'll also talk to one or two of Eshi's SL friends to help her tell her story. 'Til then, read New World Notes's update about Eshi getting her green card, and also my article on InformationWeek that covered her predicament.

Also, Crap Mariner, one of my partners in crime in Copper Robot, will take the microphone for what we hope will be a regular feature: A Few Minutes Of Crap. He'll talk about his new project, Tunes in Second Life. More about that.

In addition to Crap, I'd like to also thank my other partners-in-crime in this project: Rissa Maidstone and John Zhaoying, of World2Worlds, creators of virtual events for global business.

To be a part of the Copper Robot community, you can see the show in Second Life at the World2Worlds Seaside Theater, Sunday, Jan. 11 at 11 am Pacific time, and every other Sunday at the same time and location thereafter

Join the Copper Robot group in Second Life to stay on top of updates and future shows. Or join our Google Group or watch this space for updates.

Not in Second Life? No problem. We'll have podcast recording available. We're still setting up the podcast, when we're done it'll live at http://copperrobot.libsyn.com or http://www.CopperRobot.com

Tell your friends about Copper Robot. Suggest guests. Contact me in-world -- my avatar name and my RL name are the same, Mitch Wagner -- e-mail me at mitch@wagmail.com, or contact me on Skype at Mitch.Wagner.

I hope to see you at Copper Robot!

The "Simpsons"/"Airport 79" connection

So I'm watching The Concorde ... Airport '79 for its 70s kitsch value. It was the last of a series of 70s disaster movies set on airplanes, with a cast that just screams of the 70s: Susan Blakely, Robert Wagner, Sylvia Kristel, George Kennedy, Eddie Albert, Charo, John Davidson, Cicely Tyson, Jimmie "Dy-no-mite!" Waler, Avery Schreiber, and Sybil Danning.

Also, two names that would become famous later:

One of them was Ed Begley Jr.

The other was a tiny role -- near the beginning of the movie, we see a fake TV newscast setting up the incidents of the movie and some of the major characters. The voice of the TV reporter doing a voice-over report is maddeningly familiar. So I jotted down the character's name, and hit the IMDB.

It's this guy: Harry Shearer, better known on The Simpsons as Ned Flanders, Mr. Burns, Principal Skinner, Smithers, and Rev. Lovejoy. He's doing his Kent Brockman voice.

And how was your weekend?

Does technology change human nature?

Scalzi says human nature doesn't really change over time.

He notes that young people today think they are unique, shaped by technology. But all generations have this in common, he says:

A communal myth of generational exceptionalism: the belief (or at least a strong suspicion) that one’s social and technological accouterments, and how one uses them, signal a wholesale break from previous generations, and that one’s generation is therefore quite obviously unique and special.

But if there’s any benefit to getting older, it’s realizing just what absolute crap this sort of thinking actually is. Technology changes, social trends change, hairstyles change, but people – the actual human animals inside all that technology, sociology and tonsorial grooming — are the same as they have been for thousands of years. Grab a time machine, go back to ancient Egypt, and swap an infant there with an infant from today, and in twenty years you’ll likely find two people perfectly well integrated into their cultures because there is no difference in the human animal between now and then. Even within generations (which are an artificial construct in themselves, but never mind that now) there’s enough variation to drive you a little batty: The same generation that gave us the hippies went for Nixon in 1972, and that same generation gave us both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Go figure.

I think human nature does change over time, even as some elements remain common. And, while it's extreme for people in their 20s to claim they are uniquely changed by technology, it's also extreme to claim that nothing ever changes.

To name two examples:

As an American Jew, my life would be very different if I lived at any other time. I'm fortunate enough to live in a culture where anti-Semitism is virtually nonexistent, that's a recent development. My father had to put up with a certain amount of it, but I've only had to endure a trivial amount of anti-Semitism.

Likewise, in my career I'm a journalist and blogger, writing about the Internet on the Internet. I'm a workaholic, my career is a huge part of my identity. My job didn't exist when I graduated college -- I couldn't even have explained it to my college self.

9 thoughts about the election

Watching Obama's victory speech, Julie and I were independently struck by the thought that we were seeing a historical speech, on the level of "nothing to fear but fear itself" or "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Wish we were doing something more memorable than sitting on the couch watching TV -- what will we tell our nieces and nephew?

Obama reminds me so much of Kennedy. As the first post-Vietnam president, he represents, like Kennedy, the passing of the torch to a new generation. Like Kennedy, he is handsome and charismatic and young man. Like Kennedy, he has a pretty and elegant wife, and attractive pre-teen children. Kennedy, like Obama, came from an ethnic group that until recently had suffered great prejudice. Here's hoping racism in 40 years looks as quaint and odd as anti-Catholic bigotry does today.

I was very afraid tonight, around the time of Obama's victory speech, that, like Kennedy, he won't live long into his administration. But now I'm just enjoying the moment.

Conservative bloggers are being very gracious about the whole thing. I'm relieved about that; I feared a Constitutional crisis regardless of who won the election.

As I write this, the race on Proposition 8 is tight, but most observers seem to be saying Proposition 8 is winning. Still, the forces of tolerance can claim a moral victory here; Prop 8 supporters had to call in big bucks from out of state and they still just squeaked by. They had to base their campaign on flagrant lies -- because they have no other argument other than lies.

Still, gays and lesbians who want to marry would rather not have a moral victory. They'd rather have a victory.

Expect court cases on whether gay marriages that occurred prior to Prop 8 are still legal. Hope so, a couple of friends got married.

Voters elected Obama, but not necessarily his policies. They liked his steady demeanor, his obvious competence, and charismatic speaking style, but I don't think they necessarily agree with his positions on taxation, the economy, and foreign policy. I think it's going to be great to have strong debate on these issues. I've heard Obama referred to as a politician who transcends the categories of conservative and liberal. I've never really felt comfortable with either label. I call myself "very liberal" because I'm less uncomfortable with that label than any other, but I'm not really happy with it.

For the first time in years, I'm proud to be an American again. I don't remember when I stopped being proud. It may have been the time the Abu Ghraib incident became public. But I think it was a year later, when we bungled the Katrina relief. For the past several years, since Katrina, I've been walking around thinking of America as a country that used to be a great nation, but now practiced torture and couldn't even mount an effective relief effort from a natural disaster. But tonight I'm once again proud to be an American.

Dialogue from "Heroes" that totally didn't work

Noah Bennett: "Dear, why don't you stay here with our daughter while I run off with the hot blonde in the tank top."

Mrs. Bennett: "OK!"

I think when Claire and Ellie get in the hair-pulling fight, that's when the show officially jumped the shark. It was 9 minutes in the last episode. I paused it to check.

Seriously: We've finally caught up with the show, which we started watching on DVD in the spring. I know people said the second season was terrible, but we loved it. People said the section in medieval Japan was the worst; we thought that was the best.

This season ... well, the show isn't what it was, but we love the ridiculous, over-the-top energy of it. Sylar changes from good to evil and back again more frequently than they take commercial breaks.

Why even conservatives should vote for Obama

In a nutshell: Because he's a better candidate.

Here's something I've been wondering about recently: Why is it that libertarians have flocked to the Republican party over the past 30 years or so? Are they simply being snowed by rhetoric? Because, in fact, the Republicans are no more the party of small government than the Democrats are. Since Ronald Reagan, the GOP has been the party of expanding government spending and bringing Fundamentalist Christian values to government, especially regarding sex and abortion.

I would love to see a real libertarian party in the U.S. Not the current lot calling themselves the Libertarian Party -- they're a bunch of eccentrics who get their political philosophy from Ayn Rand and Gene Roddenberry. They want to take over the state of Vermont, and outlaw public parks. America doesn't need those guys, except to be the target of fake news reporting on The Daily Show. America needs a real libertarian party, a group that sincerely espouses minimal, pay-as-you-go government, and letting people make their own choices and solve their own problems.

I'd be tempted to join that party, even though I'm a liberal. Because the past eight years have been a demonstration of what happens when you put a bunch of amateurs in charge of government.

Come Tuesday, we don't have a small-government candidate to vote for in the Presidential election. Instead, what we have is two Big Government parties. One of them is the party of Fundamentalist Christianity, reckless spending, and careless warmaking.

On the one hand, we have McCain/Palin. Really, they're both running for President, because McCain is a 72-year-old cancer survivor who won't release his medical records. There's a good chance he won't live to blow out his birthday candles in 2012. I'm actually sad about that, because I really do like him, but that's the way to bet.

McCain has voted for Bush 90+ percent of the time. Worse than that: He's thrown away his maverick status and become a big-government, Christian Fundamentalist conservative in order to get elected. He was pro-choice, now he's anti-abortion. He said the Religious Right was a scourge on America, now he's embracing them. He opposed Bush's tax cuts, now he supports them. He opposed torture, but didn't vote against torture in the Senate.

President McCain would, quite simply, serve Bush's third term. He'd continue expanding government, eroding civil rights, getting into reckless wars, and expanding the federal deficit in a spend-and-borrow financial strategy that we're paying for now as the stock market plummets.

President Palin would be all that and more. She combines Obama's lack of experience with complete ignorance of what the federal government does. She doesn't know what the vice-president's job is. She doesn't understand the First Amendment. She doesn't know what the vice president does. She calls Obama a socialist, and yet she bragged that Alaska's natural resources are collectively owned. This is because she does not know what socialism is. Like Bush, as president she is likely to be seduced by bad advisors and get America into trouble.

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for four more years of Bush/Cheney. If you think the Iraq war was a good idea, well-executed, if you think we've followed a sound economic policy and if you think we're better off today than we were 8 years ago -- or even no worse off -- then vote for McCain/Palin. They're more of the same. Dick Cheney certainly thinks so.

Meanwhile, Obama has got a lot going for him. He was right about the Iraq war -- while everybody else was rushing to support it, he foresaw in 2004 that it would be a long-drawn out moneypit. He's got good policies on health insurance, energy, and the Wall Street bailout.

And, perhaps most important of all, during his 21 months campaigning for president, he's demonstrated a remarkable cool head, leadership, and management skill. He's a black man with an Arab name and a father who was raised a Muslim, and he's a front-runner for President of the United States in the here and now. That's a remarkable accomplishment.

Certainly, there are legitimate questions about Obama's policies and record. And one of the great disappointments about the Republican party -- the Party of Great Disappointment -- is that the party has either failed to raise those objections at all, or drowned the objections out in stupid rumors and name-calling. Obama voted "present" far too often, rather than taking a stand. His tax proposal is unclear -- does it really represent a net tax cut, or would his other policies result in a net tax gain? Would he really be writing checks to people who don't currently pay any taxes, and is that a good idea?

But the Republicans don't focus on those things. Instead, they rant hysterically, trying to turn flimsy connections to Tony Rezko and William Ayers into blood-brotherhood, or claiming that he's a secret Muslim, or questioning his citizenship, or any of a few dozen other wacky rumors that have surfaced about Obama.

One of the craziest rumors about Obama: That he is a socialist. If he is a socialist, then so is every president for the last century, because they've all advocated progressive taxation. That includes Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Maybe it is time to re-think progressive taxation -- but screeching about "socialism" is no way to have that discussion if you want to be taken seriously.

Indeed, my jaw simply drops in amazement when I hear McCain supporters criticize Obama and the Democrats for fiscal irresponsibility. It's like being scolded by Bill Clinton about sexual promiscuity. The Republicans have spent and spent and spent for the past eight years, like rich kids with credit-card bills that get paid by Daddy. Obama's a big spender, too, but at least he wants to pay as we go.

The Volokh Conspiracy's David Post, a self-described "pragmatic libertarian," writes about why he's voting for Obama.

I’m not a big fan of the state, I believe that power inevitably corrupts, that individuals, when left to their own devices, are capable of remarkable feats of self-organization and problem-solving, and that the freedoms of speech, conscience, and association are, by far, our most precious ones and need to be zealously protected from the folks with the monopoly on coercive force. I haven’t voted for a Democratic candidate for President since 1980 (and I came to regret that one pretty soon thereafter). My personal list of great Presidents is a short one: Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan.

Post goes on to cite the litany of problems America faces, and notes that we could slide into second-rate nationhood pretty easily right now.

We need a truly great president right now – and for me, a great president isn’t one who magically solves all our problems, but one who inspires us to solve our problems. No president can get us out of the mess we have made unless he or she can inspire us to do great things, and there is at least some real chance that Obama has it in him; that’s no guarantee that he’ll be a great president, but given the alternative ... that’s plenty good enough for me. I think he grasps the significance of the moment, and I think he understands that ideology is not policy and policy is not ideology. His gift for oratory, far from being the sideshow that some of his detractors claim, is in fact central to the prospects and the possibilities of an Obama presidency. The Great Ones – Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan – have had one thing (and maybe only one thing) in common: the ability to stir us to great deeds with their words.

Post has more to say. It's not too long, and worth reading.

If you're really a conservative, vote for Obama. Then kick the Fundamentists out of the Republican Party. Then hold Obama's feet to the fire on spending and government regulation. America needs a strong political movement that espouses true conservatism. We've never had one. It's about time.

Vote no on Proposition 8, motherfucker

Voters here in California are being asked to vote on a ballot initiative that would ban gay marriage. A "yes" on Proposition 8 means that thousands of people who are now legally married in California are going to be forced to have their marriages dissolved. The people promoting this ballot initiative say they're defending marriage. I looked up "Orwellian" in the dictionary and their picture was there.

There are plenty of reasons to vote "no" on 8 and say "yes" to gay marriage. Here in the 21st Century, rational people know that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It's a little twist of brain wiring, nothing more. Most people prefer to have sex with people of the other gender, but some prefer their own gender. Actually, as a percentage of the population, homosexuals are a relatively small group. It's not really a big deal. They don't hurt anyone.

There are many arguments for gay marriage. Many of them are the same arguments for straight marriage. Adults should have a right to marry whoever they want to marry, without restrictions on the basis of religion, ethnicity, race, or gender. Married people look after each other, and are less likely to become a burden on society. Married people are more likely to own property, they're more active in the community, and (statistically speaking) they make better parents to children.

Also, married people are less likely to fool around than single people are, which is a big deal to some of the same people who are (paradoxically) trying to deny marriage rights to a small minority of Californians.

Opponents of gay marriage have only have one argument, and it's not even a very good one: God doesn't like it.

That's a religious argument, and in this country, we don't pass laws because God told us to do it. That's how things operate in Iran, but not here. Here in America, we pass laws because they're good for society. The people advocating those laws may be inspired by God, but before the law is passed, they need to convince the rest of us that the law is good for society. And the Yes on 8 folks aren't doing that.

Here's why some other people think you should vote No on 8.

Anil Dash:

[J]ust forty one years ago, my marriage may well have been illegal. As a proud and unrepentant lifelong advocate and practitioner of miscegenation, my lifestyle would have been outlawed in many states, and not recognized as legitimate even in some territories where it wasn't explicitly legal.

It is now a historical inevitability that our country will legalize marriage for all couples. Though the fight is particularly polarized right now, and we will naturally face serious setbacks on the way to civil rights for all, I believe the time is close. As we saw in the fight against interracial marriages, the forces against progress are most extreme and invested right when they realize that history is against them.

Gina Trapani, who recently married her longtime partner, Terra:

We’re not asking that you change your mind about what marriage is, or that you allow for same-sex marriage in your church. This is an issue of CIVIL marriage, and civil rights, not religion. If Terra’s injured, I should be able to visit her in the hospital. If one of us goes to court, our communications should be protected by spousal privilege, and we shouldn’t have to testify against one another. If we wind up in a nursing home, we should have the right to stay together. If one of us dies, the other should have inheritance rights. Don’t ask how much I paid out-of-pocket for health insurance when I was freelancing because her employer at the time only offered coverage to married couples. If you agree that we should have the same rights as any heterosexual married couple, now’s the time to make a difference.

Gina also has a good write-up on the 1,049 federal rights that are dependent on marital status. These include hospital visitation rights:

Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.

Terra and I are registered as domestic partners in New York City, which means we could visit one another in a hospital within the five boroughs. However, if we took a car trip across the bridge to New Jersey and got into an accident, we're screwed.

Also, spousal privilege, which should be well-known to fans of Law & Order:

Spousal privilege, granted to married couples, is the right of a person to refuse to testify against their spouse in the court of law.

That means if Terra was sued, I could be called on to testify against her. And every email, phonecall, letter, IM and conversation between us would not be protected by spousal privilege, and could be entered into evidence.

Also, workplace family leave, pensions, the right to live together in a nursing home, the right to roll over a deceased spouse's retirement savings without paying a tax penalty, exemption from estate taxes, and more.

This is what gay marriage looks like:

Finally, this video points out that the ban on gay marriage is just another example of wrongful discrimination, like Japanese interment camps, bans on white people marrying blacks and Latinos, and even bans on Armenians owning property in the Central Valley of California.

The video is narrated by Samuel L. Jackson, who regrettably talks in a regular radio-announcer voice. It's a good video, but it would be even better if he used his get-those-motherfucking-snakes-off-my-motherfucking-plane voice.

About the season opener of "Dexter"

We watched the season premier of Dexter last night. We've been letting them pile up on TiVo, but now it's time to break into the pile.

One of the many things I like about this show is the way it deals with the moral choices Dexter makes. Other cop shows show cops taking justice into their own hands -- and celebrate it. It's an old, and ugly, TV-cop-show myth, that the law exists to protect criminals, and if only we let the cops beat confessions out of suspects, the streets would be safer and the country would be a better place. You can see that theme acted out on several times a week. NCIS played with it Tuesday night; cops denied a suspect a right to a public trial and gloating about it afterwards. Ha, ha! Sworn officers of the law subverted the Constitution! Isn't that terrific?!

Dexter also shows a cop (or, rather, a forensic scientist) taking the law into his own hands. But it doesn't flinch from the moral choice involved.

The appeal of Dexter is partially the appeal of vampire stories. Conscience is a burden, makes it difficult to give bad guys what they deserve. But that's not a problem for Dexter -- and fictional vampires -- they're powerful and free of the constraints of conscience. Great scenes in vampire stories and Dexter are when the killers go after bullies and brutes.

Each of the first two seasons of Dexter shows Our Hero tempted to break his own moral code, and run wild. Each of the seasons also shows Dexter confronting some false belief about his own nature. In the first season, Dexter learns he had a brother. In the second season, we learn (but I'm not sure Dexter did) that Dexter's foster father Harry lied to him -- Dexter was not born a serial killer whom Harry taught to channel his uncontrollable passions. Rather, Harry made Dexter a serial killer. I expect we'll see some kind of similar revelation in this season.

The first episode was kind of slow. I'm optimistic it'll pick up; the first seasonal installment of episodic TV novels like Dexter, or The Wire, or The Sopranos are often slow, as are the episodes in the middle of a season, but it all pays off.

About the season finale of "Mad Men"

A friend wrote: "Don is a guy that's really good at something he's not quite sure he believes in."

I don't think that's "supported by the text," as the English majors say. In no way do we see that he has stopped believing in advertising.

Nor does that fit my mental picture of Don. I think advertising is the only thing he believes in. Advertising and appearances.

He appears to be the dashing, debonair Don Draper, and not Dick Whitman, farmboy, unwanted whore's son, and Army deserter.

He appears to have a lovely, loving wife and the perfect family.

That's what he believes in.

Clearly, that stopped working for him when Betty threw him out -- but we don't know what his solution will be. He seems to have found a solution that involves him going back to his old life and job, but we don't know what that solution is. The road to redemption would be to take all those appearances and make them real. But I don't know how interesting that would be for television.

Julie pointed me to this very good episode recap and analysis of Mad Men,, which says Pete confided in Don because Pete felt a little loyal to Don. I don't see that. Pete is a weasel, loyal to no one but himself. He was hedging his bets, is all. And wisely too, as it turns out, because I expect the Brits are going to kick Duck to the curb. "Yes, Pete has grown up," TV Guide says. Yes, he's a grown-up weasel now.

I need to re-think whether it's a good idea to get involved in political arguments

To some extent, I see it as civic duty to try to persuade others to my beliefs, and to engage in discussions.

On the other hand, political arguments make me unhappy. I usually end up arguing with people I like, and I don't like arguing with people I like.

Maybe I should stick to donating to causes I support, occasionally speaking my mind, but otherwise keeping my mouth shut.

I will be very glad when this election is over. I hope Obama wins, of course, but I'll be glad when it's over. (Although I fear this'll be like 2000, and it'll just drag on and on and on forever.)

Doing our part to advance the cause of bigotry and superstition

I just got an e-mail from the group backing "No on 8."

Proposition 8 is the measure on the California ballot to ban gay marriage, voting 8 down would effectively uphold a recent California court decision making gay marriage legal. So the "No on 8" group is actually saying "yes" to gay marriage. With me so far?

According to this e-mail, opponents of gay marriage are sending letters to donors to "no on 8" threatening to publicize their donations unless the donors also donate an equal amount to the campaign to block gay marriage:

"Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies...that choose not to donate...to ProtectMarriage.com...will be published.

...We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution."

A local TV news station confirms the report.

Well, I certainly like to do my part to advance the cause of democracy. I know that the opponents of gay marriage are very, very busy. It's a lot of work to set back the clock of justice 50 years, spread superstition and fear, tell lies about your opponents, and promote bigotry. Not enough hours in the day to do it all.

So I'll save the "Yes on 8" people some trouble and out our household (so to speak):

Julie and I donated to the "no on 8" campaign, and we support the right to gay marriage.

There! No need to blackmail us, we've outed ourselves. Happy to help!

P.S. I thought about attending the North San Diego County Protect Marriage Meetup and saying, "I think it's wonderful what you people are doing! Protecting marriage! Gay marriage, straight marriage, all kinds of marriage!" But I'm too lazy.

Where are you from?

Career blogger Penelope Trunk writes about a wedding in the family of her new SO, whom she calls "the farmer." She talks about the difficulty she has answering the question "where are you from?"

Usually, saying I'm from Madison gives me a rash. Not a visible one, but maybe like a brain rash or something. So usually I say I'm from New York City.

(Side note: This is a good lesson in resume writing here, really. Because this is not a lie but not the first truth that comes to mind, but I always feel like it makes me look good, which is how you should look at a resume.

The farmer, by the way, thinks that it's a lie. He thinks I should say I'm from Wilmette. Which is the town I grew up in and haven't lived in in 25 years, and the last time I was there I wasn't even living in a house but in a mental ward because I was so insanely bulimic. But he still thinks Wilmette is the right answer.

I ignore that. I am the resume expert, after all.)

I have a similar problem. During our recent visit to Santa Fe and Albuquerque, Julie and I encountered a lot of people making smalltalk, who'd ask us, "Where are you from?"

The answer, for me, is complicated. I grew up in New York, specifically Long Island, specifically East Northport, which is a village in Huntington Township. That is where I consider myself to be "from" -- except I love New York City too, and lived my early childhood in Brooklyn, and have many happy memories of that. So I'm "from" New York City and Brooklyn, too.

However, I moved out of the New York metropolitan area 16 years ago, and then Julie and I got together and we moved to San Francisco 15 years ago, and then San Diego 11 years ago. And I've come to think of San Diego as home,

Julie has her own history to struggle with when asked that question: She was born and raised in Columbus, and is a proud Buckeye, but even before she met me she lived in San Diego, Laguna Beach, and the Boston Area.

However, people making smalltalk don't want all that information -- they just want to know where you're from.

I noticed on our New Mexico trip that Julie has a simple solution:

PERSON MAKING SMALLTALK: "Where are you from?"
JULIE: "We live in San Diego."

Which is a satisfactory answer, and the one I'll use from now on. Always the same words: "We live in San Diego."

Although, actually, we don't really live in San Diego -- we live in La Mesa, a suburb outside of San Diego. But "We live in San Diego" is the best answer. And we do live in San Diego County.

People asking questions often don't want the complete answer, they just want a good-enough answer, even if the good-enough answer feels inadequate to the person answering the question, especially when the question is simple and seems like it should have a simple answer, but the actual answer is a bit of a hairball.

Stephen King talks about dealing with his neighbors in the small town where he lives. When he encounters people around town and they ask him, "What are you working on, Steve?" he always responds, "I'm taking a break." Because, he says, he's learned through trial and error that's the only answer that will satisfy them.

(Unfortunately, I read that article years ago and can't find the link.)

Now I need to think of an answer to the question: Where do you get ideas for your articles?

About last night's episode of "Chuck"

Looking at the title -- "Chuck Versus the Cougars," I thought the episode was going to be about something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT: Chuck is assigned to infiltrate a group of predatory wealthy divorcees in their 40s and 50s who've had a lot of plastic surgery.

"Mark Ratner" was the name of the engineer that Nicole Richie was married to. That was also the name of the nerdy kid in Fast Times At Ridgemont High who was in love with Jennifer Jason Leigh.

Fast Times was based on real people -- the screenwriter, Cameron Crowe, spent a year researching life in a San Diego high school. Ratner was based on a guy named Andy Rathbone, who later on became the author of many of the Windows for Dummies books. He still lives here in San Diego. I've exchanged e-mails with him a couple of times, never met him. Sarah's high school in the show was, of course, in San Diego.

I thought they did a good job making up Sarah as a teen-aged nerd.

And now we know some things about Sarah's background, and we've opened a few more mysteries. I expect we'll see Sarah's father before the end of the season.

Wonder if we'll ever find out about Casey's past. He was great in this episode.

Product placement in science fiction

io9 looks at product-placement in science fiction. They're talking about movies and TV. But my favorite example is in a book, Citizen of the Galaxy, by Robert A. Heinlein, where a crewmember of a starship centuries in our future goes to a country fair on a faraway planet, where he is served a beverage that the salesman swears is made using the ancient, legendary recipe for Coca-Cola.

TVGal & "The Office"

TVGal was on her honeymoon for two weeks and didn't watch a minute of TV. We didn't watch any TV during our 12-day vacation, except for the presidential and vice-presidential debate (and even there we switched it off immediately after, didn't stick around to listen to the blithering pundits).

She writes about The Office:

"I love what Amy Ryan is bringing to the series as Holly. It was a savvy move to give Michael a love interest that is similarly goofy but also rooted in a little bit more reality. So far the series is doing a better job this season of tempering the outlandish, cringe-inducing moments of the show with believable moments."

I think the show goes over the top when Jan, Michael's ex, puts in an appearance. All the other characters, even the jerks like Michael, have mitigating characteristics that make them likable. Except for Jan. She's just a bitch.

About this week's episode of "Mad Men"

Watching this week's episode of "Mad Men," I said, "Don is thinking about disappearing again, like he did when he got out of the Army and buried Dick Whitman and became Don Draper." Julie was all, like, "Duh." She figured it out right away, last week. I don't see how he can do that, though -- the show is, after all, called "Mad Men," and not, "Adventures Of The Man Formerly Known As Don Draper."

Don is a tragic figure because he's ashamed of his childhood and lied to cover it up -- but it was never necessary. Even in 1963, the farmboy son of a whore and one of her johns can rise in the advertising profession, 1963 is a long way after Horatio Alger.

He's also a tragic figure because he behaves with perfect integrity in all his relationships with women. He is the perfect husband and the perfect boyfriend. Problem is, you kind of have to pick one (well, outside of poly or open relationships, and those don't exist in the world of Mad Men.)

Is Anna in love with Don? Of course she is. She thinks having a bum leg (or is she an amputee?) makes her more unattractive than it actually does. Then again, maybe in the world of Mad Men, it is exactly as unattractive as she thinks it is.

Betty is mostly sympathetic, but she's got a cruel, spiteful, vindictive streak she needs to deal with.

This week's anachronistic moment: Locking your children in the closet is an acceptable means of discipline! Then, if you have second thoughts, buy them an expensive gift!

The other anachronistic moment: Joan tries to get on top during sex, and her fiance thinks this is some kind of exotic Kama Sutra shit and it freaks him out. Then, later, he rapes her and she doesn't even seem to realize that's wrong.

Loved the illustration in Peggy's Popsicle ad. That just ain't right.

So what if he is a Muslim?

Gen. Colin Powell:

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life.

View the original photo as part of the New Yorker slide show, Service

Via Scalzi.

Lucky enough to have a job I enjoy a lot of the time

After this article and image gallery, a colleague said to me, "Boy, I bet you're glad that's off your shoulders!"

I responded, "I'm sorry, I don't understand. I don't know why you'd say that." That reads huffy, and I didn't mean it that way. I was genuinely confused. I didn't understand what he was saying. It was like he said, "Aardvark, hypotenuse, zebra, California."

In other words: "Huh?"

He said, "You mean you like doing those big, detailed reviews?"

I said, "Well, yes, actually, I do."

I like putting technology through its paces, keeping track of what works and what does it, laying it out in an elegant form that's enjoyable to read and view. I like knowing I'm helping people make better use of their computers and the Internet.

I'm lucky enough to have a job I enjoy a lot of the time. The pay is not as good as a lot of jobs. But on the other hand how much would you pay to be able to get up and do something you enjoy doing most days?

Re-reading Frank Herbert's "Dune"

I read Dune about a dozen times when I was a teen-ager. I remember the first time I read it, in the 8th grade. I remember sitting in the Elwood Junior High School cafeteria, with my nose buried in the paperback edition, a thick book with yellowed pages and tiny type. I was transported 50,000 years into the future to another world, a desert planet where a boy not much older than myself fought to become emperor of the galaxy.

That was 34 years ago, and I haven't re-read Dune since I graduated high school. However, a few years ago, I picked up the first of the prequels, written by Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert. I loved it at first, but then I began to lose interest, and I realized that everything I loved in the book came from the original novels in the series, by Frank Herbert.

So recently I decided to download the audiobook version of the original novel, and see how it held up after 30 years.

I'm about a third of the way through the nine audio volumes of the book, and so far it holds up pretty well.

Dune is the story of Paul Atreides, teen-aged son of the Duke Leto Atreides, in a galactic empire many tens of centuries in the future. It opens on the lush, tropical planet Caladan, where the Atreides household has ruled for many generations. They're packing to move to Arrakis, which the Padishah Emperor has commanded that Duke Leto will take control of. Previously, Arrakis was ruled by the Atreides' ancient enemies, the Harkonnens.

The transfer to Arrakis is a trap. The Harkonnens plan to crush the Atreides. But Duke Leto knows it, and he knows that if he can elude the trap, the family will become far more wealthy and powerful. Because Arrakis is the only place in the galaxy you can find the spice melange, a hallucinogenic drug necessary for the pilots who fly spaceships between planets. Without the spice, transportation is impossible, and whoever controls the spice is wealthy and powerful indeed.

This is one hell of a big novel. It incorporates about a dozen factions of interstellar intrigue: The Atreides; the Harkonnens; the Emperor and his elite corps of Sardaukar warriors (who are, by the way, Jewish -- Herbert alludes to that in passing); the Bene Gesserit, also known as "witches," who manipulate history through stories and language, and who are breeding a superhuman called the Kwisatz Haderach. Minor factions include the Mentats, who are human computers; electronic computers were forbidden thousands of years ago in a war called the Butlerian Jihad; and the Souk School doctors, who are brainwashed into being unswervingly loyal to the people they serve.

The most important group of all are the Fremen, the desert people of Arrakis, whom the Harkonnens discounted as vermin and whom Paul and his mother, the Lady Jessica, hide amongst when everything goes all to hell. Water is so precious on Arrakis that people make money selling it, and the Fremen wear "stillsuits" on the desert to recycle their sweat and other bodily fluids. (Ew.)

The spice is extruded by worms, giant desert creatures hundreds of meters long that the Fremen worship as gods.

The novel -- published 42 years ago -- holds up pretty well so far. It's a bit long-winded, but I vaguely remember it gets more interesting around the point I'm at now, when the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen strikes at the Atreides.

So far, the Baron is by far the most interesting character. He's a hateful cold-hearted schemer, a glutton and rapist, so morbidly obese that he has to have tiny antigravity devices, called "suspensors," attached to his clothing so he can move around.

The Baron is also gay -- perhaps the earliest example of a gay character in science fiction or fantasy. I wonder how gays feel about the Baron? On the one hand, gays -- or members of any minority group -- hate it when all the members of an ethnic minority in a work of fiction are portrayed as villains and victims. And the Baron is certainly a villain.

On the other hand, he's one of the best villains in science fiction and fantasy. He can hold his own in an evil contest with Sauron, Darth Vader, and Voldemort, in any combination of two or against all three of them put together. He is bad to the bone.

For that matter, I'm not thrilled that the only Jews in the future of Dune are henchmen for the evil emperor. But, again, they're not whiny girlymen; they're the bad-assest warriors in the Galaxy.

One quirk of writing that I've noticed: Herbert often jumps from one point-of-view to another in mid-scene. He very seldom stays with one point of view for a whole scene, we hear what one character is thinking, then another, sometimes going from one character's head to another and back during dialog exchanges. Writing teachers and editors say that's wrong, wrong, wrong -- but it works in Dune.

Even as a 13-year-old, I could see that Arrakis was a metaphor for the Middle East, melange was a metaphor for oil, and the Fremen were Arabs. When I read the book, the oil embargo was recent history, and I remembered the long lines of people to buy gas, and the way prices went up. Dune was written a decade before that, and presents a Colonial view of the Middle East: The Arabs are subjugated to the Galactic Empire, who are metaphorical Europeans. In later volumes of the series as Herbert wrote it, we see what happens when Paul "goes native" (so to speak), and leads the Fremen to galactic leadership. It's not pretty.

I wonder what Dune would have looked like if it were written today, 40 years later? Would it deal with terrorism, and with the curse that oil money has proven to be in the Middle East?

Obama, McCain, and the nogoodniks

I've been collecting links over the past couple of weeks documenting presidential candidates' affiliations to shady characters

Obama and Acorn

The New York Times - On Obama, Acorn, and Voter Registration: Obama represented Acorn in an lawsuit in 1995, he was one of a team of lawyers on the same side as the U.S. Justice Department in that lawsuit. He did two one-hour training sessions on leadership for them in the late 1990s, over a three-year period. The Obama campaign gave $832,598 to a Citizens Services Inc., a consulting firm affiliated with Acorn. Less than $80,000 went to Acorn. The Obama campaign and Obama have endorsed Acorn.

Meanwhile, Acorn denies wrongdoing. Acorn said that it's operating according to voter registration law. They're required to keep all voter reg applications, they red-flag the ones that look suspicious, such as the ones with the names of celebrities or cartoon characters.

My gut feeling: The charges against Acorn will prove to be baseless. It's all GOP FUD.

Obama and Ayers

The Huffington Post refutes more than two dozen lies about Obama and Ayers. The two men were never close. Ayers didn't even invite Obama to his home, as the GOP is trumpeting; somebody else did. Obama more recently said that his campaign wasn't launched in Ayers' living room, it launched elsewhere.

The Chicago Tribune notes that Obama may not even have known about Ayers' terrorist past when they were allied. I'm skeptical on that one - it's an extraordinary claim, and, as Carl Sagan noted, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Ayers' reputation was rehabilitated, and he was a respected part of Chicago politics when Obama came on the scene. That's troubling, but not Obama's doing. Still, Obama's alliance with Ayers is a stain on Obama's reputation. On the other hand, Obama is still the better candidate.

Now let's look at McCain/Palin and their ties to felons, terrorists, bigots, American separatists, and other unsavory characters you wouldn't want to bring home to Mother.

McCain and G. Gordon Liddy

The Washington Monthly has a meaty piece on McCain's shady connections. McCain befriended G. Gordon Liddy, a convicted felon who advised his radio listeners how to kill federal employees. McCain appeared on Liddy's radio show. Liddy was behind the Watergate break-in, he proposed to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the Republican National Convention, and he planned the murder of an unfriendly newspaper columnist.

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."

He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.

McCain on Liddy: "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family.... congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

McCain and Religious Extremists and Bigots

McCain sought out the endorsement of the Rev. Hagee, who preached anti-Catholic bigotry and said that New Orleans deserved to be devastated by Katrina. He condemmed Jerry Falwell, then embraced him. Falwell blamed homosexuals for 9/11. He "palled around" (to use Palin's words) with Charles Keating, and hired the editor of a Confederate nostalgia magazine for his campaign -- twice.

McCain and a Guy Who Helped Lobby For Saddam Hussein

The Huffington post is reporting that William Timmons, whom McCain says will head up his presidential transition team, helped lobby on behalf of Saddam Hussein.

Palin's Ties To Violent Right-Wing Alaskan Separatists

And Sarah Palin has ties to the far-right Alaska Independence Party, which wants to secede from the US. Palin worked to enact legislation that made Alaska friendlier for militias. Her husband, Todd Palin, was a member of the party for seven years:

Where does Todd Palin stand on America anyway? Neither he nor Sarah Palin ever explained his seven-year membership in the Alaska Independence Party, a group that seeks a vote on secession from America. "I'm an Alaskan, not an American" was the slogan of the party's founder, Joe Vogler, who also said "I've got no use for America or her damned institutions" and "I won't be buried under their damned flag." What made Todd Palin hitch his wagon to that anti-American train when Alaska offered the Democratic and Republican parties?

McCain says he's going to bring up the Ayers connection in tomorrow's debate. I sure hope he does.

Reading "T.R.: The Last Romantic," a biography of Theodore Roosevelt

I've been reading "T.R.: The Last Romantic," a biography of Theodore Roosevelt, for some time now. I read book-length nonfiction slowly.

It's hard to read the bio and not draw parallels to current events.

Like President Bush, Roosevelt was a child of privilege. But, unlike Bush, Roosevelt used his privilege to better himself. He studied and read widely, and traveled the world as a boy.

I've read as far as the Philippines war. TR has just become President after the assassination of McKinley. It was quite a shock, coming only a short time after the inauguration. Roosevelt was digging in for four long years out of the spotlight in obscurity as the vice-president; instead he found himself commander-in-chief.

The Spanish-American War and its aftermath in the Philippines have striking parallels to the present-day war in Iraq.

Like the war in Iraq, the Spanish-American war and the aftermath in the Philippines were controversial at home. Supporters of the war thought it was a necessary defense of American interests, and that Americans had a moral right to bring democracy to lesser peoples. Opponents said it was an unconscionable extension of American power. Supporters saw the opponents as selfish, or cowardly.

Supporters of the war also saw America's prestige and standing as a world power at stake.

Critics thought the first part of the war, against the Spanish, would be long and bloody, but the enemy capitulated much more quickly than imagined. As part of the settlement, Spain gave the Philippines to America. And America got bogged down in a lengthy, and unexpected, guerrilla war. They thought the hard part was over when Spain gave in, but they were wrong.

There was a parallel to Abu Ghraib, where an American general ordered the slaughter of all Filipino men who might take up arms against America, including boys as young as 10 years old. And there was a controversy over an interrogation technique involving water -- in the Philippines, that involved forcing water down a prisoner's throat until his belly was full, and then kicking the prisoner until he either gave up information or his belly burst.

What I'd like to know: A century later, are the Philippines better off for American intervention? Can we even say for sure?

Roosevelt believed that war was good. Today, we require our politicians to at least pay lip service to avoiding war, but Roosevelt believed a great nation had to embrace war, to make it stronger.

Also: I think most people know that Roosevelt was a naturalist, but what that meant back in the day was that he was an avid hunter. He liked nothing better than to go out and kill a couple of dozen of nature's creatures. He racked up quite a body count. I don't have a moral problem with hunting -- I don't see how I can, since I'm not a vegetarian -- but Roosevelt's bloodlust is certainly incongruous viewed through the eyes of today.

The latest book meme

• Grab the nearest book.
• Open the book to page 56.
• Find the fifth sentence.
• Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
• Don't dig for your favorite book, the cool book, or the intellectual one: pick the CLOSEST.

"His absence proved to be temporary." -- "TR: The Last Romantic," by H.W. Brands - a biography of Theodore Roosevelt, which I've been reading slowly for months now, and which took on more urgency when Senator McCain said at Tuesday's debate that TR is one of his heroes. However, based on recent events, I expect the Senator's political career will be done long before I'm done with this book.

From a book lying a few inches away from "TR" come a more interesting sentence:

"She was much more attractive when she was smiling." That's from "Jhegaala," by Steven Brust, the latest in the Vlad Taltos series.

I'm also reading an e-book on the iPhone, "My Own Kind Of Freedom: A Firefly Novel," by Steven Brust. The iPhone is closer to where I'm sitting now than either of the other books, but I can't figure out how to make the Stanza e-book software spit out page numbers.

Via Aberwyn