Utah Open Source Planet

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Evolution of Thomas Paine's Revolution by Glenn Beck

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
Anyone who knows me or has read some of my previous reviews probably knows that I'm one of Glenn Beck's biggest fans, so it will come as little surprise that I now have 4 copies of this book and plan to distribute it to family and friends.

As with his previous non-fiction work, An Inconvenient Book Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems, this book is, for the most part, a repackaging of things Glenn says every day on his television and radio shows. It discusses the corruption in government, the loyalty to special interests among those in congress, the amassing of power by the executive branch, and the cancer that is the Progressive movement.

That being said, this is definitely a book you can give to your friends who aren't necessarily one of Glenn's biggest fans. And, encourage them to pass it on when they're done. Sign your name on the inside cover and include the date your read it and encourage others to do the same. This book is a rallying cry to all those who feel their voice is held in contempt or just plain ignored by the political class in America.

I would like to share one of my favorite parts of this book. It is very near to the end of the book (before the Thomas Paine section starts) and addresses religion in a democracy.

So why is religion so important to the proper functioning of a democracy? Well, once again, our Founding Fathers had the answer. In a letter to the president of Yale University, Benjamin Franklin once wrote:

Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion.

It wasn't about any one particular creed, dogma, or church, but rather about all religions that inspired men to selflessness, virtue. and godliness. Our Founders understood the thing that we try so hard to forget today: there is far more than unites us than divides us. Virtue, honesty, and character aren't the purview of any particular congregation; they can be found in any church that has God as its foundation. We have forgotten this lesson and instead of using religion as our anchor, we use it to shame or blame. To many in this country, those who attend church regularly aren't pillars of their community, they're freaks or extremists.

But that mind-set can be changed by setting an example of tolerance and unparalleled acceptance toward each other. Let's stop using our religious symbols to score political points. Are we that insecure in our own faith that the religious symbols or public prayers of a different religion cannot be welcomed with open arms? As Thomas Jefferson once said:

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homeage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear... Do not be frightened from this inquiry from any fear of its consequences. If it ends in the belief there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise...

Religions and their followers must stop turning on each other. We are a land founded through divine Providence, a land where, as James Madison said, the "spirit of liberty and patriotism animates all degrees and denominations of men."

Very well said, Glenn.

View all my reviews.

I’ve had my Palm Pre for about five days now and I’m really starting to like it. That’s not to say the last five days haven’t been frustrating and disappointing, but I’ve managed to find acceptable solutions for most of my problems. The experience has turned out a lot better than the last time I tried switching platforms.

The Pre is definitely a 1.0 release so if you’re a techy user like me, you’ll find lots of things to gripe about, but there’s still a lot of promise in the platform. The operating system itself is at version 1.0.2 so it’s really pretty new.

Issues

I’ll start with some of the issues I’ve run into.

PIM data

If you’re a PalmOS user migrating to the Palm Pre, you’re likely to run into some of the same issues I did. First off, when I asked the Sprint sales dude (who owned a Pre and had owned a Centro prior to that) if he could transfer my data to the Pre, he said, “Sure!” and then proceeded to try to get the data off my Centro. A few minutes later, he told me he could not because he just couldn’t get any of the data to transfer over the IR port.

That’s okay, a little reading on Palm’s site told me what I needed to know. I had to sync the Centro “one last time” using the latest and greatest Palm Desktop for Windows (which I installed specifically for this task) and then download and run Palm’s Data Transfer Assistant program for Windows (which is a free download from the support area of Palm’s website.)

This allegedly transferred my address book, calendar, tasks, and notes/memos to my online Palm Profile where the Pre would automatically find them and install them. Within a few minutes, the address book on the Pre was populated with names and contact information that were on my Centro. Yay. The notes seemed to transfer okay too. But when I went into the Calendar application on the Pre, my day was blank. None of the events I had scheduled for the day were visible.

Retracing my steps, I wondered if maybe I hadn’t selected the calendar data to be transferred. In retrospect, Palm doesn’t let you choose which data you want transferred, but the DTA application has icons for each of the types of data (Calendar, Contacts, etc.) and when you click on those icons, they illuminate as if they’re selected. As a result, a user (me) might think clicking the icons somehow activates that stream of data to be transferred to the Palm Profile. So, I went back into the DTA and “selected” only the Calendar data and transferred it again.

Nothing ever showed up in my view of my day’s events on the Pre. Fiddling, I changed to the Week View. That’s when I saw confirmation that the data I had transferred using the DTA did get transferred… twice. In the Week View, I saw colored bars indicating appointments and events (in duplicate). But when I switched to the Day View, I saw nothing. Bleh.

It would be super neat if the Palm Profile was tied to Google Calendar-like web application so you could have a Palm Desktop type app on the Web, but, no, Palm doesn’t do that. There is a web-based portal that let’s you log into your Palm Profile, but it doesn’t let you do much at all except remotely delete all the data on your phone (very handy if your Pre gets stolen and you want to keep your personal information out of the hands of the thief).

So, I wasn’t sure what I was going to do. Looking at the Palm support forums, it was clear this wasn’t a unique problem to me. Lots of people were having this problem. The seemed to be that people should use Google’s Calendar app as the online storage location of Calendar data. So, I figured out how to export my PalmOS Calendar data and then import it into my Google Calendar. That worked. Now I had THREE copies of every event showing up as colored rectangles in my Week View, but at least now I had actual events in the Day View.

I tried remotely deleting the Pre’s data from the Palm Profile page, but when it booted back up, it asked me for my Palm Profile username and password and then proceeded to load up the duplicate calendar entries again. Buried in the forums, I found information that described how to erase the data in the Palm Profile (Disable backups on the Pre and then reset it.). Then I proceeded to set up the freshly reset Pre to use only Google as my online repository of Calendar data. That worked well.

In the course of all this, of course, I deleted my address book as my contacts data was stored in my Palm Profile. The Pre grabbed my contacts from Facebook and the handful I had stored already in Google Mail’s address book, but I have hundreds of contacts from my Centro that I needed to figure out how to get into Google, I guess. Google appears to only let you import from an CSV file generated from Microsoft Outlook (bleh). I can generate a CSV file, but I don’t know what one generated from Microsoft Outlook looks like, so I’ll need to do some research on that before I do it. So, for now, I’m doing without a fully-stocked address book.

E-mail

The Pre has a pretty decent e-mail client built-in, but I had problems. Again, if you’re using Google Mail as your only e-mail account, the Pre should work with no problems at all. I set up Google Mail, but I have four other generic IMAP mailboxes I wanted to check with the Pre as well.

My first problem was with encryption.

One of the IMAP sites I wanted to check mail with has CA-signed certificates in place for its encrypted IMAP traffic. This means they have purchased a authenticated certificate from a company like Verisign or Comodo. That seemed to work okay.

The other two sites I wanted to check mail with have self-signed certificates. I trust them because I set up the self-signed certificates myself. Where most modern desktop e-mail applications would raise an alert like, “Hey, we can’t vouch for the authenticity of this encryption certificate. Do you want to trust it or what?” the Pre just says, “SSL error Check your time and date.”

I hope this is something they fix in the next update of the OS because the way it works now is just bone-headed.

I discovered, yesterday, there is a manual workaround. You can grab the public certificate file off the server and copy it to the Pre via USB. Then, go into Device Info and make your way to a menu item labeled “Certificate Manager”. There, you can add a certificate, select the certificate file you added to the Pre via USB, and specify that you want to trust this certificate.

I am still having trouble sending e-mail through the two sites I manage. What’s really frustrating about this is that once you try to send e-mail, and it can’t go through, the Pre just keeps telling you there was an error sending that message. Deleting the offending message from the Outbox doesn’t stop the repeating alerts. The only way I’ve been able to stop it from notifying me about the problem is to remove the e-mail account and add it again. Stupid!

More to come. Sleep calls me.

I just watched Wednesday’s (5/27) Glenn Beck TV show on Fox News that was recorded on my DVR and I have to say it was spectacular! Part of the reason it was so great was because he had Thomas Sowell on and Wayne Allen Root who both had really profound things to say.

Checking YouTube, it looks like Glenn has plenty of friends willing to encode and upload. Here’s a smattering of online clips to choose from:

• The One Thing - Great analysis on the auto industry
• Thomas Sowell
• The One Thing - “Failure is good for the soul”
• Wayne Allen Root and Joshua Cooper Ramo Part 1
• Wayne Allen Root and Joshua Cooper Ramo Part 2
• Joshua Cooper Ramo - Is China in a position now that the US was after WW1?

When digital photo frames first became available, I bought one for my parents. It still sits in their living room and when you turn it on, it displays a slideshow of the same pictures I originally loaded onto the CompactFlash card that is plugged into the frame.

Now that wireless digital photo frames are becoming the “next big thing,” I’m interested in getting one for myself, but I’m not sure any of the models available satisfy my (modest) requirements.

It seems these wireless frames mostly work by having some kind of stupid e-mail address assigned to the frame. You send an e-mail message with a picture file attached and, within a few minutes, more or less, the picture shows up on your digital photo frame.

This seems lame to me. Here’s what I want:

• The digital photo frame should be able to connect to a local file server via SMB/CIFS, HTTP or FTP and display all images hosted at a specific location. For example: ftp://myfileserver/pictures/.

• The digital photo frame should run an HTTP server so I don’t have to use the on-board buttons or the soon-to-be-lost miniature infrared remote control to set it up. Every VoIP telephone, print server, and a gazillion other network devices seem to all have an HTTP configuration interface, so why not a wireless digital photo frame?

Am I asking too much?

Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10 by Marcus Luttrell

My review

rating: 5 of 5 stars
I'd heard Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell's story in bits and pieces on the radio and on Glenn Beck's TV shows, but I still had no idea how good it would be. This is yet-another book penned with the help of a professional author, but they really managed to leave the book feeling like it was straight out of Marcus's mouth.

The basic premise of this book is that Marcus Luttrell was a member of a Navy SEAL team -- an elite military force -- stationed in Afghanistan in 2005 and sent on a mission to spy on a remote village looking for a high-value military target and, if seen, take him out. The mission was compromised and, after a prolonged firefight with Taliban fighters, Marcus was the only one of his small 4-man team left alive. A helicopter full of SEALs sent to rescue Marcus and his fellow SEALs was attacked by the Taliban as well making this battle the single most-deadly fight in Navy SEAL history.

Marcus was listed as Missing In Action for several days as his family in Texas impatiently waited for news from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Marcus ran, fell, and crawled seven miles while being tracked by Taliban fighters and made his way to a small village where, surprisingly, he was cared for.

There's an immense amount of backstory about the preparation the typical Navy SEAL has to go through to get to be a SEAL. At first, I wasn't sure why this was necessary, but it makes sense later in the story when you consider what kind of people these soldiers were, what they had to endure in their training, and what their experiences had been prior to fighting America's enemies.

Not only did I learn a heck of a lot about Navy SEALs, I also learned a lot about the terrain, culture, and politics in rural Afghanistan. Marcus spends a good amount of time writing about ROE (Rules Of Engagement), the news media, and other issues soldiers have to take into consideration when dealing with enemies (and potential enemies) in battle. It was very eye-opening.

View all my reviews.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted anything to the Fozzolog and there are some good reasons for that: I’ve pretty much withdrawn from most of my online habits and extracurricular activities to focus on much needed areas of my life, notably my marriage, my family, my health, and my spirituality. My hope is that once I get these all tuned up, I can consider returning to some of my favorite pastimes.

With that being said, I don’t think I can let April 15 pass without at least showing up at a Tax Day Tea Party to show my support for the cause. So, if you’re at the party in downtown Salt Lake City beginning at noon, you may see me there.

Now, let me do my part to dispel some myths about these tea parties.

These tea parties are not about President Obama

While President Obama’s administration is doing almost everything wrong with regards to the economy, it would be wrong to say that people are protesting because of Obama. The problem is much larger than Barack Obama. It is the state of the federal government in general.

These tea parties are not about taxes

They’re not specifically about taxes. While the Obama administration will undoubtedly raise taxes on all of us one way or another to fund all their spending, the Tax Day Tea Parties are more about the federal government’s out of control spending, saddling the country with ridiculous amounts of debt, not allowing poorly managed companies to fail (and subsequently file for bankruptcy), and other issues.

It’s really about not listening to the people and not using common sense

Both major political parties have been actively engaged in anything and everything to gain political power at the expense of any sensible governing principles. You know, the kind espoused by the founders of our great country like “the government should not go into debt more than can be paid off in one generation.” These Tax Day Tea Parties on April 15 are the official shot across the federal government’s bow to send a message that “you work for us, remember?!” and “It’s time to get back to basics!”

Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One by Thomas Sowell

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
While on vacation in southern California, I hit a Barnes & Noble in Costa Mesa to look for something to read and something for my wife's birthday. I was looking for a book I'd read about like New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America, but the store I was at seemed chock-full of books about President Barack Obama, Global Warming, what was wrong with the Republican Party, and not much of anything that would interest a conservative like me. I did find, however, this book: Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.

There was one small problem. My B&N discount card membership had expired one month prior. I'd only used it make one book purchase in that entire year and, coincidentally, it was at that same store in Costa Mesa. I wasn't about to blow more money on their stupid discount plan and I wasn't going to spend $35 on "Applied Economics". I bought a different book instead and got something for my wife's birthday and went on my way.

When I returned home, I ordered Applied Economics Thinking Beyond Stage One from Amazon along with some other books, all at much more reasonable prices. I decided to read this one first.

Thomas Sowell is a very interesting guy. He's scholar in residence at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and has taught economics at Cornell, UCLA, Amherst and other schools. He's written several books on economics. This book is the revised (and enlarged) edition and aims to help members of the general public understand complex economic systems.

Shooting for the general public is a lofty goal. I don't think Sowell quite made it. It was hard for me to absorb some of this material and I think I've been exposed to more economics material than the average member of the general public. I think this is a testament to how difficult of a task Sowell had taken on rather than his inability to achieve his goal.

The book is divided into eight chapters, each tackling an issue from the standpoint of pure economics. The first chapter, "Politics versus Economics," serves as a primer for the rest of the book and explains the "stage one" concept in the subtitle. Sowell states that most politicians (and many regular people, for that matter) fail to consider (or admit knowledge of) the long-term effects of economic policies (or any policies, for that matter.) This is, as Sowell puts it, "stage one thinking."

Sowell's intention in this book is to help the reader understand the longer-term effects of legislation and policy decisions.

In the first chapter, Sowell explains:

Laws and policies that will produce politically beneficial effects before the next election are usually preferred to policies that will produce even better results some time after the next election. Indeed, policies that will produce good results before the next election may be preferred even if they can be expected to produce bad results afterward.

As an example, a few paragraphs later:

... it is an open question whether drug prevention programs actually prevent or even reduce drug usage, whether public interest law firms actually benefit the public, or whether gun control laws actually control guns.

Later, he examines the consequences of a series of wage and price controls instituted in the 1970s by the Nixon administration and upheld or carried further by the Ford and Carter administrations. What seemed like a good idea at the time resulted in terrible economic consequences in the long run.

Sowell points out that many politicians just feel an overwhelming need to "do something" whenever there is a crisis at hand.

Doing something almost always seems like such a good idea, to those who do not look beyond stage one, that they see no need to look back at history or to apply economics. The alternative to a "do something" approach is not to have the government always do absolutely nothing but,rather, to recognize that governments can only do something specific-- and that these specifics must be assessed in terms of their specific erffects, both immediate and long-term, as well as the general effects of extended experimentation.

The second chapter, "Free and unfree labor" begins by talking about the history of slavery. It was interesting reading a book by one of the handful of famous black people in the field of economics discussing the pros and cons of various types of slavery. Sowell actually points out that slaves in the southern United States prior to the U.S. Civil War were treated very well compared to other forced labor situations throughout history.

This chapter also touches on crime as an occuptation, and indentured servitude.

The third chapter dives into the economics of medical care. It's no surprise that Sowell makes a strong case against government-subsidized healthcare (i.e. "Universal health care"). His most pronounced argument is simply that government healthcare is another way for saying "price controls" and he already discussed the disastrous effects such controls have on a market in the first chapter. He shows these effects are obvious when you look at government health care systems in Great Britain, Canada, and other countries that offer such programs.

He also discusses the economics of malpractice insurance, pharmaceutical drugs, drug advertising, and finally an extremely enlightening treatment on organ transplants and how much sense it makes to allow a legal market for organs for organ transplantation. That was really eye opening.

Chapter Four discusses the economics of housing and illustrates how government action and regulation affects pricing. He also discusses rent control, creative financing programs, segregation in housing, and other housing issues.

Chapter Five is titled "Risky Business" and is generally about the economics of insurance, but it goes beyond just the business of insurance. Most people, and certainly some politicians, don't consider risk issues when considering an issue.

One of my favorite sections of this chapter discusses how the family was traditionally the main risk reduction instutition in people's lives. This makes perfect sense when you consider how important family honor was, say, 2-300 years ago.

...the family-- the oldest insurer of all -- cautions its members, both when they are growing up and one specific occasions afterward, against various kinds of risky behavior. When families had the burden of taking care of an unwed daughter's baby, there was more chaperoning, screening of her associates, and moral stigma attached to unwed motherhood. All these things declined or disappeared after mean of these costs were shifted to government agencies.

Sowell attacks the issues of risk and insurance from a number of surprising and enlightening angles.

In Chapter Six, Sowell takes on immigration. Expecting him to jump right into the overwhelming costs to the system the illegal immigrant issue burdens our government, I was a little taken back when I a rather comprehensive look at immigration across history. He discusses cultural implications, income implications, health implications, legal and illegal immigration, economic benefits and costs to immigrants and the society they are immigrating to. It is, perhaps, the most unbiased and clearly focused treatment on immigration I've ever read.

In his conclusions, he does touch on some points specific to the hot issues in the US illegal immigration debate. For example, in comparing import of products versus import of labor:

When Americans buy a Toyota from Japan, the Toyota does not demand that the United States accomodate the Japanese language or that Americans adjust themselves to Japanese customs in their own country, much less introduce diseases into the American population. Moreover, Toyotas do not give birth to little Toyotas that can grow up with the problematic attitudes of some second generation immigrants.

Chapter seven is about discrimination. It begins by educating the reader on the distinct differences between bias, prejudice, and discrimination. Sowell points out that bias, prejudice, and discrimination are not "bad" by themselves. There are circumstances, history, and more criteria to consider before we can judge that they are bad.

From there, Sowell discusses anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action regulations and legislation, and the pros and cons (mostly cons) of each. One statement from the summary section reads:

...those who fail to qualify for particular benefits are often said to be denied "access" or "opportunity," when in fact they may have had as much access or opportunity as anyone else, but simply did not have the developed capabilities required...
...a mental test may be characterized as "culturally biased" if one group scores higher than another, as if it is impossible for different groups to have different interest, experience, upbringing, education, or other factors that would lead to a real difference being registered, rather than a biased assessment being made.

Chapter eight discusses the economic development of nations. This chapter discusses the misnomers of "developing nations," the effects of foreign aid, the importance of formal property rights, the geographic issues related to economies as well as bunch of other implications.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, Sowell's book is pretty heady content, but I found it refreshing as it is so clear cut. All of his statements came down on the side of common sense. Isn't that what we all wish our policy makers employed more of?

View all my reviews.

I am reading “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand. It is a collection of essays by Rand and other academics from the school of Objectism. One essay, “Common Fallacies About Capitalsm,” written in 1963 by Nathaniel Branden, grabbed my attention in a particularly intense manner.

After typing for quite some time, I would like to present an excerpt from this essay: a section titled “Depression”. Boldface emphasis has been added by me.

Question: Are periodic depressions inevitable in a system of Laissez-Faire Capitalism?

It is characteristic of the enemies of capitalism that they denounce it for evils which are, in fact, the result not of capitalism but of statism: evils which result from and are made possible only by government intervention into the economy.

I have discussed a flagrant example of this policy: the charge that capitalism leads to the establishment of coercive monopolies. The most notorious instance of this policy is the claim that capitalism, by its nature, inevitably leads to periodic depressions.

Statists repeatedly assert that depressions (the phenomenon of the so-called business cycle of “boom and bust”) are inherent in laissez-faire, and that the great rash of 1929 was the final proof of the failure of an unregulated, free-market economy. What is the truth of the matter?

A depression is a large-scale decline in production and trade; it is characterized by a sharp drop in productive output, in investment, and in the value of capital assets (plants, machinery, etc.). Normal business fluctuations, or a temporary decline in the rate of industrial expansion, do not constitute a depression. A depression is a nation-wide contraction of business activity—and a general decline in the value of capital assets—of major proportions.

There is nothing in the nature of a free-market economy to cause such an event. The popular explanations of depression as caused by “over-production,” “under-consumption,” monopolies, labor-saving decides, maldistribution, excessive accumulations of wealth, etc., have been exploded as fallacies many times.

Readjustments of economic activity, shifts of capital and labor from one industry to another, due to changing conditions, occur constantly under capitalism. This is entailed in the process of motion, growth, and progress that characterizes capitalism. But there always exists the possibility of profitable endeavor in one field or another, there is always the need and demand for goods, and all that can change is the kind of goods it becomes most profitable to produce.

In any one industry, it is possible for supply to exceed demand, in the context of all the other existing demands. In such a case, there is a drop in prices, in profitableness, in investment, and in employment in that particular industry; capital and labor tend to flow elsewhere, seeking more rewarding uses. Such an industry undergoes a period of stagnation as a result of unjustified, that is, uneconomic, unprofitable, unproductive investment.

In a free economy that functions on a gold standard, such unproductive investment is severely limited; unjustified speculation does not rise, unchecked, until it engulfs an entire nation. In a free economy, the supply of money and credit needed to finance business ventures is determined by objective economic factors. it is the banking system that acts as the guardian of economic stability. The principles governing money supply operate to forbid large-scale unjustified investment.

Most businesses finance their undertakings, at least in part, by means of bank loans. Banks function as an investment clearing house, investing the savings of their customers in those enterprises which promise to be most successful. Banks do not have unlimited funds to loan; they are limited in the credit they can extend by the amount of their gold reserves. In order to remain successful, to make profits and thus attract the savings of investors, banks much make their loans judiciously: they must seek out those ventures which they judge to be most sound and potentially profitable.

If, in a period of increasing speculation, banks are confronted with an inordinate number of requests for loans, then, in response to the shrinking availability of money, they (a) raise their interest rates, and (b) scrutinize more severely the ventures for which loans are requested setting more exacting standards of what constitutes a justifiable investment. As a consequence, funds are more difficult to obtain, and there is a temporary curtailment and contraction of business investment. Businessmen are often unable to borrow the funds they desire and have to reduce plans for expansion. The purchase of common stocks, which reflects the investors’ estimates of the future earnings of companies is similarly curtailed; overvalued stocks fall in price. businesses engaged in credit, are obliged to close their doors; a further waste of productive factors is stopped and economic errors are liquidated.

At worst, the economy may experience a mild recession, i.e. a slight general decline in investment and production. In an unregulated economy, readjustments occur quite swiftly, and then production and investment begin to rise again. The temporary recession is not harmful but beneficial; it represents an economic system in the process of correcting its errors, of curtailing disease and returning to health.

The impact of such a recession may be significantly felt in a few industries, but it does not wreck an entire economy. A nation-wide depression, such as occurred in the United States in the thirties, would not have been possible in a fully free society. It was made possible only by government intervention in the economy—more specifically, by government manipulation of the money supply.

The government’s policy consisted, in essence, of anesthetizing the regulators, inherent in a free banking system, that prevent runaway speculation and consequent economic collapse.

All government intervention in the economy is based on the belief that economic laws need not operate, that principles of cause and effect can be suspended, that everything in existence is “flexible” and “malleable,” except a bureaucrat’s whim, which is omnipotent; reality, logic, and economics much not be allowed to get in the way.

This was the implicit premise that led to the establishment, in 1913, of the Federal Reserve System—an institution with control (through complex and often indirect means) over the individual banks throughout the country. The Federal Reserve undertook to free individual banks from the “limitations” imposed on them by the amount of their own individual reserves, to free them from laws of the market—and to arrogate to government officials the right to decide how much credit they wished to make available at what times.

A “cheap money” policy was the guiding idea and goal of these officials. Banks were no longer to be limited in making loans by the amount of their gold reserves. Interest rates were no longer to rise in response to increasing speculation and increasing demands for funds. Credit was to remain readily available—until and unless the Federal Reserve decided otherwise.

The government argued that by taking control of money and credit out of the hands of private bankers, and by contracting or expanding credit at will, guided by considerations other than those influencing the “selfish” bankers, it could—in conjunction with the other interventionist policies—so control investment as to guarantee a state of virtually constant prosperity. Many bureaucrats believed that the government could keep the economy in a state of unending boom.

To borrow an invaluable metaphor from Alan Greenspan: if, under laissez-faire, the banking system and the principles controlling the availability of funds act as a fuse that prevents a blowout in the economy—then the government, through the Federal Reserve System, put a penny in the fuse-box. The result was the explosion known as the Crash of 1929.

Throughout most of the 1920’s, the government compelled banks to keep interest rates artificially and uneconomically low. As a consequence, money was poured into every sort of speculative venture. By 1928, the warning signals of danger were deeply apparent: unjustified investment was rampant and stocks were increasingly overvalued. The government chose to ignore these danger signals.

A free banking system would have been compelled, by economic necessity, to put the brakes on this process of runaway speculation. credit and investment, in such a case, would be drastically curtailed; the banks which made unprofitable investments, the enterprises which proved unproductive, and those who dealt with them, would suffer—but that would be all; the country as a whole would not be dragged own. However, the “anarchy” of a free banking system had been abandoned—in favor of “enlightened” government planning.

The boom and the wild speculation—which had preceded every major depression—were allowed to rise unchecked, involving, in a widening network of malinvestments and miscalculations, the entire economic structure of the nation. People were investing in virtually everything and making fortunes overnight—on paper. Profits were calculated on hysterically exaggerated appraisals of the future earnings of companies. Credit was extended with promiscuous abandon, on the premise that somehow the goods would be there to back it up. It was like the policy of a man who passes out rubber checks, counting on the hope that he will somehow find a ay to obtain the necessary money and to deposit it in the bank before anyone presents his checks for collection.

But A is A—and reality is not infinitely elastic. In 1929, the country’s economic and financial structure had become impossibly precarious. By the time the government finally and frantically raised the interest rates, it was too late. It is doubtful whether anyone can state with certainty what events first set off the panic—and it does not matter: the crash had become inevitable; any number of events could have pulled the trigger. But when the news of the first bank and commercial failures began to spread, uncertainty spread across the country in widening waves of terror. People began to sell their stocks, hoping to get out of the market with their gains, or to obtain the money they suddenly needed to pay bank loans that were being called in—and other people, seeing this, apprehensively began to sell their stocks—and, virtually overnight, an avalanche hurled the stock market downward, prices collapsed, securities became worthless, loans were called in, many of which could not be paid, the value of capital assets plummeted sickeningly, fortunes were wiped out, and, by 1932, business activity had come almost to a halt. the law of causality had avenged itself.

Such, in essence, was the nature and cause of the 1929 depression.

It provides one of the most eloquent illustrations of the disastrous consequences of a “planned” economy. In a free economy, when an individual businessman makes an error of economic judgment, he (and perhaps those who immediately deal with him) suffers the consequences; in a controlled economy, when a central planner makes an error of economic judgment, the whole country suffers the consequences.

But it was not the Federal Reserve, it was not the government intervention that took the blame for the 1929 depression—it was capitalism. Freedom—cried statists of every breed and sect—had had its chance and had failed. The voices of the few thinkers who pointed to the real cause of the evil were drowned out in the denunciation of businessmen, of the profit motive, of capitalism.

Had men chosen to understand the cause of the crash, the country would have been spared much of the agony that followed. The depression was prolonged for tragically unnecessary years by the same evil that caused it: government controls and regulations.

Contrary to popular misconception, controls and regulation began long before the New Deal; in the 1920’s, the mixed economy was already an established fact of American life. But the trend toward statism began to move faster under the Hoover Administration—and, with the advent of Roosevelt’s New Deal, it accelerated at an unprecedented rate. The economic adjustments needed to bring the depression to an end were prevented from taking place—by the imposition of strangling controls, increased taxes, and labor legislation. This last had the effect of forcing wage rates to unjustifiably high levels, thus raising the businessman’s costs at precisely the time when costs needed to be lowered, if investment and production were to revive.

The National Industrial Recovery Act, the Wagner Act, and the abandonment of the gold standard (with the government’s subsequent plunge into inflation and an orgy of deficit spending) were only three of the many disastrous measures enacted by the New Deal for the avowed purpose of pulling the country out of the depression; all had the opposite effect.

As Alan Greenspan points out in “Stock Prices and Capital Evaluation,” the obstacle to business recovery did not consist exclusively of the specific New Deal legislation passed; more harmful still was the general atmosphere of uncertainty engendered by the Administration. Men had no way to know what law or regulation would descend on their heads at any moment; they had no way to know what sudden shifts of direction government policy might take; they had no way to plan long-range.

To act and produce, businessmen require knowledge, the possibility of rational calculation, not “faith” and “hope”—above all, not “faith” and “hope” concerning the unpredictable twistings within a bureaucrat’s head.

Such advances as business was able to achieve under the New Deal collapsed in 1937—as a result of intensification of uncertainty regarding what the government might choose to do next. Unemployment rose to more than ten million and business activity fell almost to the low point of 1932, the worst year of the depression.

It is part of the official New Deal mythology that Roosevelt “got us out of the depression.” How was the problem of the depression finally “solved”? By the favorite expedient of all statists in times of emergency: a war.

The depression precipitated by the stock market crash of 1929 was not the first in American history—though it was incomparably more severe than anything that had preceded it. If one studies the earlier depressions, the same basic cause and common denominator will be found: in one form or another, government manipulation of the money supply. It is typical the manner in which interventionism grows that the Federal Reserve System was instituted as a proposed antidote against those earlier depressions—which were themselves products of monetary manipulation by the government.

The financial mechanism of an economy is the sensitive center, the living heart, of business activity. In no other area can government intervention produce quite such disastrous consequences. For a general discussion of the business cycle and its relation to government manipulation of the money supply, see Ludwig von Mises, Human Action.

One of the most striking facts of history is men’s failure to learn from it.

Wow.

That’s about all I can think of. Wow.

John Stossel’s latest 20/20 piece on the so-called economic stimulus features lawmakers, economists, lots of media darlings, and simple, simple questions. After watching this, how can you not wonder what the hell our elected “leaders” are thinking?

(Note: After I posted this, I discovered the video I original watched was only one of six parts, so here you go!)

Part 1 of 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiUy5n8gkJs

Part 2 of 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZl9AMnwio0

Part 3 of 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPTjO3MjdiM

Part 4 of 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOAzvWB7mHo

Part 5 of 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA1Y61xdCX4

Part 6 of 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y4Y9(dWMQzE

I recently decided to embark on a journey of digitizing a box full of audio cassettes. Those who knew me growing up—especially when I was in junior high and earlier—know I was always goofing off with a microphone and a tape recorder. I operated a pirate radio station at AM 1630 for a while too. It’s broadcast radius covered most of the town of Granger, UT, where I lived.

One of the nuggets I found was actually much later than that. In 1995, I had just published (self-published) a book about the World Wide Web titled Fozziliny George Moo’s Guide To The World Wide Web and was asked by a friend to appear on his radio program.

Now, about this friend: His name is Doran Barons. Freaky, right?! My name is Doran Barton! His name is Doran Barons!

He saw a letter I had written to the editors of Wired magazine a few months before (which was subsequently published in Wired) and sent me e-mail to introduce himself. This triggered a series of e-mail exchanged between us which led to him inviting me on his radio program, Digital Village a weekly radio program on KFPK, 90.7FM in Los Angeles, CA.

Digital Village has an online MP3 archive of their radio program going back to 2000 and they’ve hosted some impressive guests on their radio program like Neal Stephenson (one of my favorite authors), Bruce Sterling (another of my favorite authors), Steve Wozniak (who started Apple with Steve Jobs), Bruce Schneier, and Lawrence “Larry” Lessig. It’s cool that I preceded such giants. :-)

After I did the telephone interview with the radio program, Doran sent me a cassette tape of the program and I’ve digitized it (with Doran’s permission). So, if anyone’s interested in taking a peek back in time to 1995 to hear about the World Wide Web in its relative infancy, here it is:

• http://www.xmission.com/~fozz/podcast/19950917-digital_village.mp3

It’s clear I was fresh from doing lots of research for my book. It’s fun listening to me advise one of the show’s callers to contact the “site” he was getting his dialup access through to see if they offered anything like PPP, SLIP, or TIA so he could “extend the Internet to his home computer over his dialup line” or he could use lynx at the shell prompt on the Unix system he was dialing into.

This book— Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell— is just chock full of gems. A lot of this stuff I already was aware of, but Sowell frames it exceptionally well.

Here is another blurb from the chapter on insurance which addresses social insurance (e.g. social security), which isn’t a real insurance at all:

Government-run social insurance programs seldom have enough assets to cover their liabilities, but rely instead of making current payments out of current receipts. These are called pay-as-you-go programs— and sometimes they are called pyramid schemes. Pyramid schemes are privately run pay-as-you-go plans— and they are illegal because of their high risk of default and the opportunities for those who run them to take part of the money for themselves. The most famous pyramid scheme was run by a man named Charles Ponzi, who went to jail back in 1920. He used the same principles behind the pension plans of many Western governments today.

Ponzi had promised, within 90 days, to double the investments of those who paid into his program. The first investors who were not deterred by warnings from skeptics were in fact rewarded by having their investments pay off double in 90 days. Ponzi simply paid the first wave of investors with money from the second wave of investors, and the second wave from the even larger number of those in the third wave, as enthusiasm for his plan spread. So long as the number of people attracted to this plan formed an expanding pyramid, both the earlier investors and Ponzi profited handsomely. But, once the pyramid stopped growing, there was no way to continue to pay off those who sent Ponzi their money, since his scheme created no new wealth.

The American Social Security pension system and similar government pension systems in the countries of the European Union likewise take in payments from people who are working and use that money to pay the pensions of people who have retired— paying the first generation who paid into these pension plans with money received from the second generation, and so on.

…

Those who warned that these government pension plans were essentially Ponzi schemes without enough assets to cover their liabilities— that they were “actuarially unsound” in the financial jargon— were either not believed or were brushed aside for having made objections that were theoretically correct by in practice irrelevant. One of those who brushed these objections aside was Professor Paul Samuelson of MIT, the first American winner of the Nobel Prize in economics:

The beauty of social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in… Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population. More important, with real incomes growing at some 3% a year, the taxable base upon which benefits rest in any period are much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generations now retired… A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.

By the end of the twentieth century, however, the day of reckoning began to loom on the horizon for these government pension programs, as it had for the original Ponzi scheme. Contrary to Professor Samuelson’s assertion, there are not always “more youths than old folks.” As birth rates declined in the Western world and life expectancy increased, vastly increasing the number of years in which pensions would have to paid to growing numbers of people, it became painfully clear that either tax rates were going to have to rise by very large amounts or the benefits would have to be reduced in one way or another — or both— or the system would simply run out of money.

Continuing with more excellent excerpts from Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell.

This one is on Government intervention in depressions and comes from the chapter titled Politics versus Economics:

Prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s, there was no tradition of federal government intervention to get the United States out of depressions. Roosevelt’s predecessor, President Herbert Hoover, was the first President to take on that responsibility, and many of his interventions were later simply carrier much further by FDR, despite a political myth that persisted for years that Hoover was a “do nothing” President. In much later years, even prominent former advisers of the Roosevelt administration admitted that FDR’s New Deal was a further extension of what Hoover had been doing. Herbert Hoover was in fact the first President to decide to “do something” on a national scale to try to extricate the country from a depression, though there is no evidence that what he did made things any better and there is considerable reason to believe that they made things worse.

Earlier in the 1920s, a sharp decline in the economy had been largely ignored by President Calvin Coolidge— and the economy pulled out of its decline in relatively short time, as it had pulled out of other such declines in the past. There was nothing inevitable about a stock market crash leading to a decade-long depression. Moreover, as Professor Peter Temin or M.I.T. has noted, the 1929 stock market crash was not unique:

The stock market has gone up and down many times since then without producing a similar movement in income. The most obvious parallel was in the fall of 1987. The isomorphism was uncanny. The stock market fell almost exactly the same amount on almost exactly the same dates.

Another study referred to the October 19, 19878 decline as “by far the worst precentage decline day in the stock market’s history.” In 1987, however, President Ronald Reagan did not react as Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt had in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash. Instead, like Coolidge before him (whom he admired,) Reagan let the economy recover on its own. Far from leading to a Great Depression, the recovery began one of the longest periods of sustained high employment, low inflation, and general prosperity in American history. At the time, however, President Reagan was sharply criticized in the Washington Post for a “do-nothing, let-the-problems-accumulate, Calvin Coolidge act of the 1980s” and was denounced in the New York Times for having “squandered the opportunity” to take action.

I am currently reading Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell and have found it full of awesome quotes and data. For example, this from the chapter section on insurance and risk:

As a matter of financial self-protection, both families and insurance companies must seek to discourage risky behavior in one way or another. For a government agency, however, financed by taxpayers’ money, there is no such urgency about discouraging the increased risks that people may take when those risks are covered by others. Moreover, the agency gets its biggest political support from helping those suffering the consequences of the risks they have taken, however unwisely, not by criticizing them.

Stay tuned for more great nuggets.

The Survivors Club: The Secrets and Science that Could Save Your Life by Ben Sherwood

My review

rating: 3 of 5 stars

I picked up this book at the John Wayne Airport after hearing Ben Sherwood on Glenn Beck's radio show and seeing him on Glenn's TV show.

Sherwood's book approaches survival from multiple angles and I appreciated that. Whatever you might think this book is, it probably is just a bit and a whole lot of what you didn't expect. I found most of it to be anecdotal and a bit fluffy, which made it a very easy read, but Sherwood does shower some dense statistics throughout the book for you to dig through that make the subject matter more appealing to the left brain.

Much of the book is the result of interviews with and stories about people who have encounter dramatic and traumatic events in their lives whether it be an airplane crash, a lion attack, captivity inside a Nazi concentration camp, or miraculously escaping one of the NY World Trade Center towers after the airplane has hit the building.

Combining advice from survival experts, doctors, the survivors themselves, and others, Sherwood comes up with a variety of intriguing possibilities for why certain people survive. In addition, he includes recommendations for people wanting to boost their potential survivability. He addresses the issues of good luck vs. bad luck and how strategic thinking and doing some simple preparatory planning for the worst can save you from freezing or "becoming a statue" when the unexpected happens.

So, in conclusion, a very easy read partly because it's well written and partly because the subject matter is a little superfluous and fluffy. It's less dense than Freakonomics, but just as interesting to read.

View all my reviews.

I’m very stoked about the Palm Pre. Last night on Jimmy Falon’s talk show, Engadget editor Joshua Topolsky and “Jim” shared love for the forthcoming smartphone. See the video here.

Mona Charen wrote an article titled “American Dependence - Where is the responsibility?” that I saw at National Review Online which addresses the issue of which political party to blame for soaring government deficits.

For eight years, the Democrats have entertained us with a great song and dance about deficits. It is now evident that they were, not to put too fine a point on it, insincere.

On the other hand, some of us have been calling out Republicans, in good times and bad, for abandoning principle. In 2003, for example, I wrote: “When it comes to spending, alas, the Republicans are hardly Eagle Scouts either. The ideal of smaller government is in eclipse at the moment. The terror attacks have been seized as an opportunity to lard on new spending for favored constituencies. Citizens Against Government Waste estimates that the federal government will spend $22.5 billion on 9,362 pork-barrel projects in 2003.” And in a 2005 column titled “Who Are These Republicans,” I wrote “And now President Bush, whose greatest sin in his first term was failure to wield the veto pen, has joined enthusiastically in the legalized looting of the taxpayer.”

She opens the article with some mighty embarrassing quotes from Speaker Pelosi in 2006:

“While President Bush continues to trumpet his so-called ‘economic achievements,’ the Bush administration confirmed today that the budget deficit for 2006 will be one of the largest in our nation’s history. President Bush’s failed economic policies have resulted in budgets that are drastically out of balance and skyrocketing debt. Budget deficits translate into higher interest rates, which means that mortgages cost more, credit-card debt grows, and student loans cost more… . Democrats know how to restore fiscal discipline with tough policies of pay-as-you-go budgeting, no new deficit spending … .”

Ahhh. It would be hilarious if it weren’t… you know… our money.

I think every elected official in the federal government needs one of those fancy reset buttons Hillary’s been giving out in Europe.

Beginning in 2007 during the beginning of the 2008 presidential election, many on the right began predicting that the election of one of the viable democratic contenders for president — Clinton and Obama — would result in a significant move toward a socialist state in the US. Some of the more… dramatic ones on the left, including my idol Glenn Beck, have succeeded in bluring the lines between socialism and communism.

Now, I’m sure many pundits and commentators, including the amazing, wonderful and entertaining Beck, really do know the difference between the two, but their flippant banter only confuses people.

This article Cathy Young over at Reason magazine explains the rhetoric pretty well and makes the observation that while Obama’s administration is certainly friendly to larger government chock full of social programs, this isn’t a course change by any means.

A headline in The Weekly Standard warns of “The Return of Big Government”; but big government never left, and certainly not under Bush. Obama may be seeking to reverse Ronald Reagan’s legacy; but, as conservative economist Bruce Bartlett argued persuasively in his 2006 book, Impostor, that legacy was already betrayed by Bush. Many people will tell you we officially became “the U.S.S.A.” with the bank bailout in October 2008.

Since the 2008 presidential election cycle was in full swing, Glenn Beck has been saying that both Republican and Democrat parties were both in favor of “taking us to the same place, only one is taking us in a steam train and the other is taking us in a jet plane.”

It seems any time philosophical labels are brought up on the Internet, bad things tend to happen. I think part of the reason there has been so much back and forth discussion about these labels is due to Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. People have ridiculed Jonah, but I think he’s dead-on.

Many people believe Hitler was the epitome of fascism and that fascism is an extreme form of right-wing thinking — that had George W. Bush been able to go full-bore and do whatever he wanted as much as he wanted, we would have seen the second coming of Hitler. (Note: Bush is a poor analogy since he is, by far, a moderate Republican and not the poster-boy for the far-right.) Jonah Goldberg sets the record straight and I have to wonder why we ever wondered in the first place. After all, the Nazis stood for the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. “Socialist” and “Workers” should be the key words there. That’s something to think about.

As President Obama and the US Congress continue to, in my opinion, destroy wealth-production in our country and severely handicap our ability to recover from the economic advertsity we’ve gotten into, I’m encouraged by leaders of business, like Gregory Knox, who obviously get it.

The new administration seems set on continuing to bail out failing businesses and providing support to labor unions — big reasons these businesses are failing!

Here’s a letter from a president of General Motors to his employees in 2008:

Dear Employee,

Next week, Congress and the current Administration will determine whether to provide immediate support to the domestic auto industry to help it through one of the most difficult economic times in our nation’s history. Your elected officials must hear from all of us now on why this support is critical to our continuing the progress we began prior to the global financial crisis… As an employee, you have a lot at stake and continue to be one of our most effective and passionate voices. I know GM can count on you to have your voice heard.

Thank you for your urgent action and ongoing support.

Troy Clarke
President
General Motors North America

Mr. Knox wrote a letter back to Mr. Clarke in December 2008:

In response to your request to call legislators and ask for a bailout for the United States automakers please consider the following, and please also pass this onto Troy Clark, the president of General Motors North America for me.

You are both infected with the same entitlement mentality that has bred like cancerous germs in UAW halls for the last countless decades, and whose plague is now sweeping the nation, awaiting our new “messiah” to wave his magical wand and make all our problems go away, while at the same time allowing our once great nation to keep “living the dream”.

The dream is over!

The dream that we can ignore the consumer for years while management myopically focuses on its personal rewards packages at the same time that our factories have been filled with the worlds most overpaid, arrogant, ignorant and laziest entitlement minded “laborers” without paying the price for these atrocities and that still the masses will line up to buy our products

Don’t tell me I’m wrong. Don’t accuse me of not knowing of what I speak. I have called on Ford, GM, Chrysler, TRW, Delphi, Kelsey Hayes, American Axle and countless other automotive OEM’s and Tier ones for 3 decades now throughout the Midwest and what I’ve seen over the years in these union shops can only be described as disgusting.

Mr Clark, the president of General Motors, states:

“There is widespread sentiment in this country, our government and especially in the media that the current crisis is completely the result of bad management. It is not.”

You’re right, it’s not JUST management, how about the electricians who walk around the plants like lords in feudal times, making people wait on them for countless hours while they drag ass so they can come in on the weekend and make double and triple time for a job they easily could have done within their normal 40 hour week

How about the line workers who threaten newbies with all kinds of scare tactics for putting out too many parts on a shift and for being too productive (mustn’t expose the lazy bums who have been getting overpaid for decades for their horrific underproduction, must we?!?) Do you really not know about this stuff?!?

How about this great sentiment abridged from Mr. Clarke’s sad plea:

“Over the last few years we have closed the quality and efficiency gaps with our competitors.”

What the hell has Detroit been doing for the last 40 years?!?

Did we really JUST wake up to the gaps in quality and efficiency between us and them?

• The K car vs. the Accord?

• The Pinto vs. the Civic?!?

Do I need to go on?

We are living through the inevitable outcome of the actions of the United States auto industry for decades.

Time to pay for your sins, Detroit .

I attended an economic summit last week where a brilliant economist, Alan Beaulieu surprised the crowd when he said he would not have given the banks a penny of “bailout money”. Yes, he said, this would cause short term problems, but despite what people like George Bush and Troy Clark would have us believe, the sun would in fact rise the next day and something else would happen. Where there had been greedy and sloppy banks, new efficient ones would pop up. That is how a free market system works. It does work if we would let it work!

But for some reason we are now deciding that the rest of the world is right and that capitalism doesn’t work; that we need the government to step in and “save us”. Save us, hell we’re nationalizing and unfortunately too many of this once fine nation’s citizens don’t even have a clue that this is what’s really happening but they sure can tell you the stats on their favorite sports teams yeah THAT’S important.

Does it occur to ANYONE that the “competition” has been producing vehicles, EXTREMELY PROFITABLY, for decades now in this country?…

How can that be???

Let’s see - -

• Fuel efficient -

• Listening to customers -

• Investing in the proper tooling and automation for the long haul -

• Not being too complacent or arrogant to listen to Dr W Edwards Deming 4 decades ago -

• Ever increased productivity through quality, lean and six sigma plans -

• Treating vendors like strategic partners, rather than like “the enemy” -

• Efficient front and back offices -

• Non union environment

Again, I could go on and on, but I really wouldn’t be telling anyone anything they really don’t already know in their hearts

I have six children, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of wanting someone to bail you out of a mess that you have gotten yourself into. My children do this on a weekly, if not daily basis, as I did at their age. I do for them what my parents did for me (one of their greatest gifts, by the way). I make them stand on their own two feet and accept the consequences of their actions and work them through.

Radical concept, huh?

Am I there for them in the wings? Of course but only until such time as they need to be fully on their own as adults

I don’t want to oversimplify a complex situation, but there certainly are unmistakable parallels here between the proper role of parenting and government.

Detroit and the United States need to pay for their sins.

Bad news people, it’s coming whether we like it or not.

The newly elected Messiah really doesn’t have a magic wand big enough to “make it all go away” I laughed as I heard Obama “reeling it back in” almost immediately after the vote count was tallied “we might not do it in a year or in four”! Where was that kind of talk when he was RUNNING for the office

Stop trying to put off the inevitable!

That house in Florida really isn’t worth $750,000!

People who jump across a border really don’t deserve free health care benefits!

That job driving that forklift for the big 3 really isn’t worth $85,000 a year!

That couple whose combined income is less than $50,000 really shouldn’t be living in that $485,000 home!

Let the market correct itself people, it will. Yes it will be painful, but it’s gonna be painful either way, and the bright side of my proposal is that on the other side of it is a nation that appreciates what is has and doesn’t live beyond its means and gets back to basics and redevelops the work ethic that made it the greatest nation in the history of the world and probably turns back to God.

Sorry, don’t cut my head off. I’m just the messenger sharing with you the “bad news”

Gregory J Knox
President
Knox Machinery, Inc.
Franklin, Ohio 45005

Hey y’all, I’ve volunteered to teach in the Fedora Classroom this Saturday (7 Mar 2009). The Fedora Classroom is an IRC-based classroom environment.

So, at 3pm MST (22:00 UTC), anyone can participate by logging in to #fedora-classroom on irc.freenode.net and I, fozzmoo, will be doing a 1-hour presentation on Perl basics.

I’ve been digging through old presentations and workshops notes from when I used to do all day Perl workshops at USU for the USU Free Software and Linux Club to see what I can distill down into a 1-hour presentation. If there’s enough interest and response, we’ll see about turning this into a regular thing.

(Ryan Byrd)[http://www.ryanbyrd.net/techramble/] blogged recently with a (programming interview question)[http://www.ryanbyrd.net/techramble/2009/03/03/programming-interview-question-of-the-day/] that I thought I’d take a stab at in Perl.

The question is as follows:

• when passed in a number that is evenly divisible by 3, return “wiz”
• when passed in a number that is evenly divisible by 5, return “bang”
• when passed in a number that is evenly divisible by both 3 and 5, return “wiz bang”
• otherwise, return the number passed in

My solution exploits Perl’s list type to store potential output as a queue of sorts.

sub function {
    my $num = shift;
    my @output = ();
    unless($num % 3) {    push @output, "wiz"; }
    unless($num % 5 ) {    push @output, "bang"; }
    if(@output) {   return join ' ', @output; }
    return $num; 
}

I just returned from vacationing with my family in California, a state that is hurting terribly right now economically and is also a “leader” among states in the fight against global warming. While vacationing, we spoke with a few locals and just about all had personal stories to tell about the economic perils of the state. One older couple described how one of their sons had been laid off from his job and wasn’t enjoying being “Mr. Mom.” Another couple told us a story of gettign IOUs from the state in place of a state tax refund.

In a previous post, I presented the notion that “cap and trade” legislation was, in reality, a tax on businesses. Proponents of cap and trade have argued it is not a tax because the revenue from the purchases of carbon credits (the permits required to emit the restricted materials) does not go to the government. But, it’s just the same to the business- a penalty they must pay which is calculated more or less as a portion of their overall production.

Politicians like to say things like “This isn’t a tax on the individual. This is a tax on corporations.” A lot of people buy into that, but people who understand how business works realize a tax on business results in a burden on individuals because businesses aren’t going to eat the cost of those taxes — they’re going to pass it on to the consumer. Cap and trade is no different.

Over the last couple of years, there has been talk about a carbon tax instead of cap and trade. This would be a literal tax and would provide revenue to the government from companies that emit over the prescribed capped levels. Either way, it’s still an additional cost on production for companies that are already struggling in today’s tough economy and operating in a country with some of the highest corporate tax rates in the the world.

What do large companies do when the cost of operations in a region is high? They do what many “evil” American companies do: they move operations to a region where operations can be done under more friendly terms. Case in point: California. Increasing regulations, taxes, and red tape have prompted California employers to relocate to other more business-friendly regions over the last decade. The result: A recent headline indicates unemployment numbers in California around ten percent!

Finally, here’s some food for thought: American companies, whether out of principle or because of the intimidation of the Environmental Protection Agency, generally conduct the cleanest operations in their industry, worldwide. This doesn’t surprise me after I see automotive manufacturers repeatedly include verbiage in their marketing about how little energy they use, how much recycled material they use, or how much they do to offset their impact on the environment.

If you buy into the idea of global warming gradually destroying our planet, you should realize that almost all regulatory schemes like cap and trade are based on older, flawed models like Kyoto. If these regulation schemes force companies to move operations to regions with less cost/regulation or force manufacturers to purchase their raw goods from producers in other countries, the overall impact to the planet probably isn’t going to change. Countries with inexpensive labor costs like China, India, Russia and others have practically no incentive to regulate their impact on the environment whatsoever.

The best policy, both for our economy and for the good of the planet (if you’re an alarmist) is to promote production in the United States where we do things clean, efficiently, and under a watchful eye.

I was skimming articles on Real Clear Politics and saw a couple talking about the monster issue conservative talk radio was sounding the alarms about during the 2008 election: Cap And Trade.

What is “Cap and Trade,” exactly? Well, at it’s most basic level, it’s a tax on companies that produce carbon dioxide emissions. At a closer level, it is a system by which companies, industries, and even states and countries purchase and carbon credits on an open market. But, in the end, it’s a tax, because when everything is said and done, the revenue generated by cap and trade transactions goes to… well, nobody really talks about where it goes, but it goes to some government account.

There’s an obvious similarity between cap and trade and the SCHIP legislation recently signed by President Obama: the government maneuvers itself into a situation where it is actually encouraging the bad behavior it was supposedly trying to discourage.

In the case of SCHIP, the legislation signed calls for a large tax increase on cigarette and other tobacco product purchases. The rationale here is that the increased fee will create a burden on those in society that purchase these unhealthy products and, therefore, will encourage them to stop engaging in behavior like smoking. The money collected from these taxes is funnelled into programs to guarantee health insurance for children.

If you haven’t figured it out already, while legislators called this tax increase a penalty on smokers that should decrease the number of smokers, they actually want more smokers in order to fund SCHIP!

It’s will be just the same with cap and trade legislation. Replace a person smoking cigarettes with a company that produces carbon dioxide emissions as part of their operations and you’ve got the same thing. The money collected from this scheme will be funnelled to some program or group of programs that are then dependent upon companies doing something government really does not want them to do.

The conflict of interest here is interesting, but to muddy the waters more, it seems apparent, to me anyway, that the urgency of addressing carbon dioxide emissions is still far from settled.

In one article I read, 10 Ways To Trade Up by Kevin Drum with Mother Jones, Drum compares cap and trade ideas to the 1970 Clean Air Act and uses it as a proof of cap and trade’s inevitable success.

We found out in 1990, when the Clean Air Act was modified to address acid rain pollution caused by sulfur dioxide from coal-fired power plants. Instead of requiring every plant to install a specific cleanup technology or meet a specific emission rate, the epa simply set a nationwide cap on the total volume of SO² emissions and required power plants to own a permit for each ton of SO² they emitted. Each plant was allocated a certain number of permits, and if a plant reduced its emissions to the point where it didn’t need all its permits, it could sell them to the highest bidder.

The problem I have with this comparison is the “well, duh!” assumption that there’s nothing wrong with comparing carbon dioxide to sulfur dioxide. They’re both bad for the environment, one might say.

The problem is that sulfur dioxide is a poisonous gas that can be used to produce sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide has been well documented to cause a wide variety of health issues in humans and animals. Carbon dioxide, not so much. In fact, carbon dioxide has been shown, time and time again, to improve the production of plant life and has little or no effect on humans.

It should also be mentioned here that carbon dioxide accounts for anywhere from one tenth of a percent to one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (the evil, nasty water vapor being the largest constituent of these insidious chemicals bent on destroying life on earth.)

The global warming alarmists claim rising carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere are to blame for seemingly corresponding rising global temperatures. This is intriguing until you match up temperature fluctuations on Earth with temperatures on other planets in our solar system and match that to solar energy output from our sun.

As silly as it may seem to create an ellaborate trading market (to veil a taxation scheme) to plunder companies for generating a mostly harmless gas into the atmosphere, it’s very likely it will happen. President Obama has been consistent in statements about environmental policy and the “rightful place” of science.

Drum writes, “The backbone of (President Obama’s) climate policy is actually an ambitious program (Cap and Trade) that, if done right, will reduce greenhouse gases and raise desperately needed revenue—and, most important of all, has a fighting chance of making it through the congressional sausage factory in one piece.”

The country and the world seem to be slowly waking up, however. Most of the online comments to the Mother Jones article seem to be indicative of this as most of them decry global warming alarmism and question the logistics of cap and trade legislation.

This last Friday, Glenn Beck’s TV show on FOX News involved wargaming worst-case scenarios five years into the future. There was a lot of talk about hyperinflation, world-wide jumps in unemployment, and increasing disenfranchisement and distrust of the government.

Being a Mormon, I’ve heard all my life about how we should prepare for tough times by building up food storage for your family and having tools and supplies that can help you weather tough times.

But what about diabetics like myself or other people whose lives depend on regular doses of medication? In a major disaster, it’s possible your neighborhood pharmacy is not going to be able to get resupplied and it might not even be open or accessible.

I’m fairly certain my health insurance plan won’t cover my purchasing extra insulin and other supplies to stock-up in case of a disaster. I’d probably have to pay out-of-pocket to stockpile these items and then rotate through them with supplies my insurance company will cover so I always have a couple weeks or a couple months extra.

Another problem diabetics and others may have to consider is how to keep medicines like insulin stored at recommended temperatures. If a disaster results in loss of power and/or heating fuel, keeping stored insulin cold (and not frozen) can be a challenge.

I also should make sure I have a good supply of hearing aid batteries so people can talk to me when we’re all living off wheat stores and stale water. :-)

Working with databases is something programmers, especially Web programmers, often need to do. Most (reputable) database backends provide a way to use Structured Query Language (SQL) queries to interact with the database. That’s usually where the similarity ends. Working with MS SQL Server, Oracle, and MySQL databases typically means you must acquire connection libraries unique to a specific database backend to interact with a database with SQL.

Since we’re talking about Perl, let’s use PostgreSQL as an example. There is a CPAN module called Pg that gives you a set of subroutines for interacting directly with a PostgreSQL database backend.

Here is the example usage from the Pg POD:

use Pg;
my $conn = Pg::connectdb("dbname=template1");
my $res  = $conn->exec("SELECT * from pg_user");
while (@row = $res->fetchrow) {
    print join(" ", @row);
}

If you wrote a whole application using this Pg module and then someone came along and said, “Hey, I like your application, but we use MySQL,” you’d probably plant your face into your palm pretty hard.

DBI

In the 1990s, Tim Bunce contributed the DBI module to CPAN. DBI is database abstraction layer meaning that it sits between your applications and any database backend and gives you (the programmer) a generic set of facilities for interacting with databases.

Examine at how the Pg example could be accomplished using DBI:

use DBI;
my $dbh = DBI->connect('dbi:Pg:dbname=template');
my $sth = $dbh->prepare('SELECT * FROM pg_user');
my $rv = $sth->execute;
while(my @row = $sth->fetchrow_array) {
    print join(' ', @row;
}

The first thing to notice here is the DBI->connect() line. In many cases, this line is the only one you would need to change to migrate a DBI application from one database backend to another. The first parameter passed to the connect() function is a DBI Data Source Name — or DSN.

Some examples of DSNs that you may use with DBI:

• dbi:mysql:database=shoppinglist;host=db1
• dbi:Pg:dbname=bookshelf;host=192.168.1.22;port=5432
• dbi:SQLite:dbname=/var/db/addrbook.db
• dbi:CSV:f_dir=/home/joe/csvdb
• dbi:Oracle:host=oracle;sid=oracle

DBD modules

The interface from DBI to each specific database backend is provided by DBI Drivers or DBD modules. In addition to drivers for most common database backends, there are some unusual and unique drivers as well such as DBD::CSV which provides the means to use SQL queries to interact with data in comma-separated values text files.

Stop worrying about quoting

One thing that typically comes up when working with non-DBI database interaction methods is worrying about value quoting. SQL requires that column values be quoted with single-quote characters unless the value is a number. For example:

INSERT INTO TABLE friend (first_name, last_name, age) 
VALUES ('Joe', 'Smith', 15);

This is, of course, assuming the age column is an integer. Think about zip codes. The person who designed the schema for the database you’re working with might have made the assumption that a zip code would always be a 5-digit number and therefore defined the zipcode as an integer type. Another person might have considered the possibility of zip+5 zip codes and defined the column as VARCHAR(10) and values would therefore need to be quoted inside single quotes.

Fortunately, if you use DBI properly, you won’t have to worry about quoting because you can use placeholders and bind values in query strings. See the example below:

my $sth = $dbh->prepare('INSERT INTO friend (first_name, last_name, age) 
VALUES (?, ?, ?)');
my $rv = $sth->execute( $first_name, $last_name, $age);

The question marks in the prepare() call are placeholders and the parameters passed to execute() are the corresponding bind values.

One of the reasons DBI uses a prepare() call followed by an execute() call instead of one call to execute a query is so you can reuse a prepared query with multiple bind values. Notice this example which reads from a CSV file and populates a database table:

my $sth = $dbh->prepare('INSERT INTO friend (first_name, last_name, age) 
VALUES (?, ?, ?)');

while(<CSV>) {
    my ($first_name, $last_name, $age) = split /,/;
    my $rv = $sth->execute( $first_name, $last_name, $age);
}

Fetching data

In the first example above which showed how the Pg module interacted with a PostgreSQL database backend, the fetchrow() call returned an array of values in a row of results. This is fairly limited and by no means provides the result data in all the ways a programmer would to use it. For example, one glaringly absent piece of information is the field names.

DBI provides multiple calls for fetching result data. Below is an example of the fetchall_hashref() call which gives you access to all rows in a result as a referenced hash.

my $sth = $dbh->prepare('SELECT * FROM friends');
my $rv = $sth->execute;
my $friend_hash = $sth->fetchall_hashref('id');

For simple queries like this, it may makes sense to use DBI’s selectall_hashref() call, which results in even fewer lines of code:

my $friend_hash = $dbh->selectall_hashref(
    'SELECT * FROM friends', 'id');

The resulting hashref, when dumped using Data::Dumper might look like this:

$VAR1 = {
      '1' => {
               'id' => 1,
               'age' => 15,
               'last_name' => 'Smith',
               'first_name' => 'Joe'
             },
      '3' => {
               'id' => 3,
               'age' => 33,
               'last_name' => 'Jansen',
               'first_name' => 'Stuart'
             },
      '2' => {
               'id' => 2,
               'age' => 25,
               'last_name' => 'Johnson',
               'first_name' => 'Roger'
             }
    };

In conclusion

This short article only scratches the surface on DBI, but it hopefully gives the reader an idea of the power and flexibility provided by this valuable CPAN module.

For those who are looking for more indepth information O’Reilly and Associates has published a fine book on DBI, co-written by Tim Bunce, Programming the Perl DBI which is highly recommended. And then there’s always the DBI PODs: Type perldoc DBI after/if you’ve got DBI installed on your system.

I recently received a couple e-mail messages suggesting that our government has crossed a mighty threshold and that it was time for us, as concerned citizens, to take action to express our displeasure with policies architected to bury current and future taxpayers in unprecedented amounts of debt. These e-mail messages suggested the solution was getting a large group of people to simply refuse to pay their federal income taxes.

The logic here is that without tax revenue, the federal government would be unable to fund programs like those in the recent “Stimulus Package.” Plus, what better way to let elected leaders know you’re not happy with the direction they’re taking the country than by pulling the plug on the very means they have to do those things?

I’m not sure I agree with this suggestion. It’s an intriguing suggestion, but it’s a risky move for obvious reasons. If you don’t get enough people to go along with it, then you’re asking to be fined and penalized by the IRS. On the other hand, if you do get enough people to go along with it, it would be virtually impossible for the government to go after all those who refuse to pay.

I did a quick Google search to see what kind of “chatter” there is online about such a tax revolt. There’s a little background talk about it, but mostly people are organizing protests against tax hikes and the Obama “stimulus.”

If the Obama “Stimulus” is just the beginning of similar policy shifts to come, we may very well begin seeing items in the news like this and it will be interesting to see how the administration responds. Will they step back and find peaceful solutions or will we be looking at incidents reminiscent of Ruby Ridge, ID and the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX?

In slightly unrelated news, it is interesting to see how quickly terms like “flat tax” and “fair tax” have all but disappeared from the public radar since President Obama took office.

I just noticed that a couple sites that aggregate from my blog feeds got dumped on, big-time because my moving blogs modified the "updated" field for all blog entries. As a result, it would appear to the aggregators that while my blog entries have been posted over the last eight years or so, I just updated them in the last week... so you should take notice.

Sorry!

This is a little late coming, but now that I have my blogs all split out, I'm getting caught up on things.

Nearly two weeks ago, on Sunday, 8 February, I found out a good friend had died in an automobile accident in Orem, UT. Friends and family rallied online, sharing consolation, stories, and memories on Facebook, and on a blog set up in her honor. Even she and I had only really been friends for four and a half months, we had spent a lot of time online chatting with each other about this, that, the other, and that other thing and since I save transcript logs of every chat I engage in, those conversations were, in a sense, immortalized.

While others she knew had memories of her smiles, her beautiful blue eyes, her fashion sense, and other attributes you would notice by being around her, I mostly had text conversations.

So, I went through my chat logs and pulled out a few excerpts that I felt really demonstrated her personality and I sent that to the person who was maintaining the blog set up for her remembrance. I have include that below, titled "Four and a half months."

Four and a half months

Adrianne McBride died in a tragic automobile accident on the morning of Sunday, 8 February 2009 at the age of 23. At the funeral services held in her honor today, family members recalled her sweet spirit, off-the-charts passion and zeal, her clever wit, her love for shoes and shopping with her mother, and her insatiable love of writing, socializing, romanticizing, and pondering the mysteries of life.

I almost never knew this young woman. It was only through my friend Chadd that we knew each other. She worked with Chadd at BIO-West in Logan as an assistant to the editorial department. I don't know exactly what it was she did there, but I know one of her responsibilities was helping with desktop IT support. She was responsible for maintaining the BIO-West website content using applications I had developed years before for BIO-West. Chadd had told me a few things about Adrianne, but it wasn't until I helped her navigate the ropes of the content management system for the BIO-West website that our friendship began.

Chadd had sent me to her blog months before, so I knew she was somewhat of an "English geek" and I can definitely relate to a person who blogs, so I already knew we'd probably get along. Chadd also warned me about her opinions... perhaps that should be "OPINIONS."

As time went on, I coined a nickname for Adrianne: Violet. I called her Violet because she was spending a lot of time online in "invisible mode," meaning she was online, but unless she was chatting with you, you wouldn't know she was online. I think she went invisible because she needed to get stuff done and didn't want to all her friends chatting with her. Sometimes, however, it was specifically because of some guy she liked.

Anyway, I called her Violet because tha's the name of the daughter from the animation film "The Incredibles." One of Violet's powers is invisibility. Adrianne seemed flattered that I coined a nickname for her and shared nicknames with me others had given her.

It's funny that, when I think back, Violet/Adrianne and I were only physically in the same room with each other a handful of times - maybe three or four times. Those were when I travelled to Logan to do work onsite at BIO-West. On one occasion, Chadd, Adrianne, Chadd's oldest daughter, and I went to lunch at a Japanese restaurant in Logan. I think it was Adrianne's first time eating sushi. She was cautious but determined to do it.

As I search back through the history of my friendship with Adrianne, I'm shocked at how short the friendship actually was: four and a half months! Adrianne made me her friend on Facebook on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 at 12:58 p.m. We had exchanged e-mail messages for about a month prior to that about the BIO-West website, but once we became "friends," the topics of our e-mail and online conversations became, well, less professional.

As I sift through my chat logs and watch how our friendship unfolded, I'm embarrassed, to say the least. Some of our early conversations consisted of me going on and on about myself and her issuing one word responses here and there. Others bordered on inappropriate (my fault). Yet, in spite of all that, she stuck with it and, eventually, she began sharing all kinds of personal things with me and, I think, began looking forward to our chats rather than tolerating them. Having heard or read what others have said about her, I think this just goes to reinforce that she was very accepting and forgiving person.

Reading back through these, I can now see wonderful characteristics in her that I never fully acknowledged before. It's a pity we seem to gloss over or fail to notice these things in people until it's too late. In some ways, we barely knew each other, yet she was very concerned about my feelings. She would apologize for bothering, irritating, or annoying me and usually I hadn't even realized a situation had transpired in which I might have had that reaction. She was so sincere and empathetic!

Like I said, she and I spent a generous amount of time talking about her dating life (or lack thereof), relationships, relationship strategies, etc. I'm not going to include much of that here, but Adrianne seemed to just need someone to bounce things off of, it seems.

Our first Google Talk chat lasted about 20 minutes. Here's an excerpt toward the end of it:

(05:29:01 PM) Fozz: Did you ever use the VMS system at USU?
(05:29:18 PM) Fozz: That was "the" e-mail system when I was in school there.
(05:29:29 PM) Andrianne: No, I never used it.
(05:29:44 PM) Fozz: My wife and I met chatting on that system back in 1993.
(05:30:02 PM) Andrianne: Chadd and I use IM quite frequently regarding work stuffs. And it's nice because then we don't have to talk out loud and bother people.
(05:30:30 PM) Fozz: Yeah- when Chadd talks outloud, it tends to bother a lot of people. ;-)
(05:30:31 PM) Andrianne: They had chat in 1993?
(05:30:35 PM) Fozz: It wasn't like this.
(05:30:40 PM) Fozz: it wasn't graphical.
(05:30:44 PM) Fozz: It was all text-based.
(05:30:46 PM) Andrianne: Actually, when I talk out loud it tends to bother people. :)
(05:30:57 PM) Fozz: And it was only with other people who were using the same system.
(05:31:07 PM) Fozz: I've got to run. I'll be back in 15-20 min
(05:31:18 PM) Andrianne: Alright

Already, we can see Adrianne was armed and ready with her wit and sense of humor.

About 90 minutes later, we chatted again. This time, about television shows. A barrage of opinions flew across at me. Anyone who knew Adrianne knows her opinions on television, movies, etc. and has probably been exposed to this barrage on multiple occasions because she never seemed to tire of espousing her opinions.

(07:12:09 PM) Fozz: I was watching Sarah Connor do her wild thang.
(07:12:19 PM) Andrianne: I hear that show might get canceled.
(07:12:27 PM) Fozz: Ah well.
(07:12:41 PM) Fozz: That would suck.
(07:12:52 PM) Fozz: but it seems like all the shows I get into get canceled
(07:13:00 PM) Andrianne: Were you into Firefly?
(07:13:04 PM) Andrianne: Arrested Development?
(07:13:09 PM) Andrianne: Veronica Mars?
(07:13:13 PM) Fozz: I was into Firefly, VM
(07:13:15 PM) Fozz: Buffy, Angel.
(07:13:32 PM) Fozz: Star Trek: Enterprise.
(07:13:46 PM) Fozz: Not so much Arrested Development... but I've had people tell me I'd really dig it.
(07:13:54 PM) Andrianne: It's quite great.
(07:13:54 PM) Fozz: But yeah- I've got box sets of them all.
(07:14:50 PM) Fozz: Are you into Heroes?
(07:15:31 PM) Andrianne: Nope
(07:15:44 PM) Fozz: Good show.
(07:15:53 PM) Andrianne: I hear it took a pretty steep turn down, though
(07:16:01 PM) Fozz: But I'm not impressed with this season.
(07:16:59 PM) Andrianne: Last season, the only shows I watched devotedly were The Office and 30 Rock.
(07:17:00 PM) Fozz: I would hate to be a writer for television.
(07:17:18 PM) Andrianne: My girl crush on Kate Walsh led me to watch Private Practice every now and again
(07:17:30 PM) Fozz: I'm not at all familiar with that.
(07:17:42 PM) Andrianne: This season I'm going to continue the ritual from last season, and now I'm hooked on Pushing Daisies
(07:17:45 PM) Fozz: My brother-in-law, whom I work with, is a big fan of 30 Rock.
(07:17:46 PM) Andrianne: So, 3 shows. Not bad.
(07:17:56 PM) Andrianne: The Office is my favorite show, um, ever.
(07:17:59 PM) Fozz: I've been told I'd like The Office.
(07:18:03 PM) Fozz: I like Steve Carrel.
(07:18:04 PM) Andrianne: But 30 Rock has more laughs per episode
(07:18:39 PM) Andrianne: Do you like Alec Baldwin?
(07:18:44 PM) Fozz: I watch Smallville... and I don't know why anymore.
(07:18:46 PM) Fozz: No, not really.
(07:18:53 PM) Fozz: I don't care for him very much as a person.
(07:18:57 PM) Fozz: He's a half-decent actor.
(07:19:07 PM) Fozz: I liked him in Hunt For Red October.
(07:19:19 PM) Fozz: Can't think of any other films I saw hiim in that I liked.
(07:19:33 PM) Fozz: I thought Harrison Ford was a better Jack Ryan anyway.
(07:19:53 PM) Fozz: A friend of mine got me into SportsNight.
(07:20:08 PM) Fozz: Another show that got an early cancellation.
(07:20:12 PM) Fozz: Same with Studio 60.
(07:20:21 PM) Fozz: Same writer/producer.
(07:20:40 PM) Andrianne: Have you seen Glengarry Glen Ross?
(07:20:41 PM) Fozz: Sorkin did The West Wing, which I never watched.
(07:20:47 PM) Fozz: Yes. A couple times. Good show.
(07:20:49 PM) Fozz: Dammit.
(07:20:58 PM) Andrianne: That's one of Alec's best.
(07:21:04 PM) Fozz: Oh yeah- I guess it was.
(07:21:07 PM) Andrianne: He's seriously one of the funniest men EVER.
(07:21:11 PM) Andrianne: And 30 Rock makes use of that.
(07:21:12 PM) Fozz: I liked Spacey better in that show.
(07:21:18 PM) Andrianne: Mmm, Spacey.
(07:21:23 PM) Andrianne: He's my old man crush
(07:21:25 PM) Fozz: Heh.
(07:21:29 PM) Fozz: American Beauty?
(07:21:30 PM) Andrianne: I saw him on Broadway last year
(07:21:46 PM) Fozz: I think I saw American Beauty in the theater (in Logan) like... 5 times.
(07:21:46 PM) Andrianne: American Beauty is amazing.
(07:21:59 PM) Fozz: I don't think I've seen anything in the theater that many times.
(07:22:00 PM) Andrianne: I wish I could've seen it in theatres
(07:22:07 PM) Fozz: Yeah- you were like 12. :)
(07:22:16 PM) Andrianne: 1999?
(07:22:18 PM) Andrianne: I was 14.
(07:22:20 PM) Fozz: Uhm... Close.
(07:22:23 PM) Andrianne: lol
(07:23:19 PM) Fozz: Yeah- great movie. Great writing. Great direction and just plain awesome cinematography.
(07:23:30 PM) Andrianne: Yes.
(07:23:47 PM) Andrianne: Pretty damn close to flawless
(07:23:55 PM) Fozz: I think a lot of that comes from the fact the director was a Broadway director who was doing his first film.
(07:24:04 PM) Fozz: Sam Mendes.
(07:24:12 PM) Andrianne: He's a lucky man.
(07:24:35 PM) Andrianne: I liked Road to Perdition, too, but not Jarhead.
(07:24:56 PM) Andrianne: (He's married to Kate Winslet, so Sam Mendes = lucky.)
(07:25:05 PM) Fozz: When it came out, it was controversial because of drugs, sex, incest, all that crap.
(07:25:15 PM) Fozz: Yes. Lucky.
(07:25:19 PM) Fozz: Wow. I just saw her in...
(07:25:21 PM) Fozz: What was it...
(07:25:25 PM) Andrianne: Eternal Sunshine?
(07:25:30 PM) Fozz: Yeah.
(07:25:34 PM) Andrianne: Amazing.
(07:25:38 PM) Fozz: And she had not a single hint of an accent.
(07:25:46 PM) Fozz: That was a decent show.
(07:25:53 PM) Andrianne: She made me think about coloring my hair that Raggedy Ann red.
(07:26:00 PM) Andrianne: And then I realized, um, bad idea for me.
(07:26:01 PM) Fozz: Probably the first decent show from Netflix in probably 4-5.
(07:26:12 PM) Andrianne: Ahh, netflix.
(07:26:18 PM) Andrianne: I'm addicted, and I blame Chadd.
(07:26:21 PM) Fozz: heh heh.
(07:26:28 PM) Fozz: I blame Chadd for a lot of my personal problems.
(07:26:32 PM) Andrianne: lol!

Adrianne then shared with me her growing frustration with living in Logan. All her friends had gotten married and were starting families, she said. Nonetheless, she said she liked Logan "even if dating is a suckhole here."

"Men, for a multitude of reasons, are emasculated and wimpy," she said. "They aren't aggressive. If people even make friends with the opposite gender, they `hang out.´

The next time we chatted was 5 days later on Monday, 6 October 2008. I had just returned from taking a certification exam in Phoenix (which I passed) and was concerned about the future of my job. I had purchased some books on leadership and organizational skills to prepare for the forthcoming changes in my life I saw written on the proverbial wall.

(12:01:29 PM) Adrianne: Isn't it a shaky time to think about getting a new job?
(12:01:38 PM) Fozz:I'm contractually obligated to stay at KnowledgeBlue until Jan 1.
(12:01:48 PM) Adrianne: I know very little about the IT job market, so I could be way off.
(12:01:50 PM) Fozz: You're right. It's not a great time to be doing that.
(12:02:00 PM) Fozz: Utah, of course, fares better than the rest of the nation.
(12:02:49 PM) Adrianne: In general, or with IT?
(12:02:55 PM) Fozz: in general.
(12:03:09 PM) Fozz: because our economy is in much better shape than the rest of the country.
(12:06:17 PM) Adrianne: If only our average income was higher...
(12:06:43 PM) Fozz: Sure.
(12:07:44 PM) Adrianne: See, I have this theory.
(12:07:57 PM) Fozz: oh?
(12:12:15 PM) Adrianne: Sorry -- I had to get the phone for a second
(12:12:55 PM) Adrianne: I think that, in order to make things fair, designer clothing should have pricing akin to that of housing.
(12:14:01 PM) Adrianne: See, a pair of Christian Louboutins (running from $600-$3000) are much less expensive to a New Yorker who makes more on average. Sure, they spend more on living and other expenses in general, but a pair of $700 shoes to them is more like a pair of $1500 shoes to me.
(12:14:04 PM) Adrianne: If that makes sense...
(12:15:36 PM) Fozz: $700 shoes? What? Do they make you fly or something?
(12:16:23 PM) Adrianne: No.
(12:16:38 PM) Adrianne: They're just gorgeous, handmade Italian shoes. Mmmmm.
(12:22:28 PM) Adrianne: They used to be in the $300-$1500 range, but the prices have been steadily rising for the last 5 years or so
(12:38:52 PM) Adrianne: Everyone has their "thing" that they like to dream about and sometimes splurge on, right?
(12:39:09 PM) Adrianne: My friends of the male persuasion love spending boatloads on home theatre setups.
(12:39:58 PM) Adrianne: My "thing" is designer shoes (generally Christian Louboutins) and Diane von Furstenberg dresses. Le sigh.
(12:43:08 PM) Adrianne: I have a feeling you probably like to splurge on fancy-shmancy computer toys
(12:59:22 PM) Fozz: I guess so.
(12:59:46 PM) Fozz: Except I'm married... so splurge isn't really allowed to be part of my vocabulary.
(01:12:18 PM) Adrianne: It isn't?
(01:12:30 PM) Fozz: Not really.
(01:12:39 PM) Adrianne: Never ever?
(01:12:40 PM) Fozz: Plus, my wife is all sensible and stuff.
(01:12:51 PM) Adrianne: I think people can still be sensible and splurge.
(01:12:55 PM) Adrianne: It's all about balance.
(01:12:55 PM) Fozz: She buys shoes a lot more than I do, tho.

Ahh, the next of Adrianne's passions is unveiled: Shoes. And not just any shoes... tall, expensive shoes.

(01:16:55 PM) Adrianne: I'm all about the towers.

(01:17:22 PM) Fozz: good. Makes your butt look good too. :)
(01:17:52 PM) Adrianne: That's what they say.
(01:18:32 PM) Adrianne: http://i24.ebayimg.com/05/i/001/08/b8/e16c_1.JPG
(01:18:52 PM) Adrianne: This was my first pair of Christian Louboutins. If high heels make your butt look good, then I'm set for life with those babies.
(01:19:40 PM) Fozz: Oh boy. Those look like they disfigure your feet.
(01:22:20 PM) Adrianne: No way.
(01:23:45 PM) Adrianne: They're spectacular.
(01:23:58 PM) Fozz: Cool.

I still chuckle when I read what happened next in the exchange. I was working on some programming in another window but accidentally typed ":q!" into the conversation window instead.

(01:24:19 PM) Fozz: :q!

(01:24:23 PM) Fozz: woops. wrong window.
(01:25:32 PM) Adrianne: What in the world is :q!
(01:25:33 PM) Adrianne: ?
(01:25:43 PM) Fozz: Heh heh.
(01:25:52 PM) Fozz: That's the command to forcefully exit the vim text editor.
(01:26:10 PM) Adrianne: It looks like a weird emoticon.
(01:26:15 PM) Fozz: Yeah. It does.
(01:26:42 PM) Fozz: Like someone smoking from a bong or something. :)
(01:27:00 PM) Adrianne: You said it. :)

The next time Adrianne and I chatted, she decided to let me me in on a secret.

(05:18:38 PM) Adrianne: Can you keep a secret?

(05:18:43 PM) Adrianne: As in, tell NO ONE.
(05:18:48 PM) Fozz: Not even Chadd?!
(05:18:52 PM) Adrianne: Not even Chadd.
(05:18:57 PM) Fozz: Okay. I'll do it.
(05:18:59 PM) Fozz: (not tell Chadd)
(05:19:02 PM) Adrianne: Lol
(05:19:18 PM) Fozz: You're pregnant?
(05:19:22 PM) Fozz: I just saw Juno on Friday
(05:19:27 PM) Fozz: It was better than I thought it would be.
(05:19:40 PM) Adrianne: Um, that would require having sex or using in-vitro.
(05:19:50 PM) Adrianne: I have never engaged in neither of those things.
(05:19:55 PM) Fozz: Both have been known to happen from time to time.
(05:20:03 PM) Fozz: So, it's not within the realm of impossible.
(05:20:11 PM) Adrianne: So, safe to say my eggo is not preggo.
(05:20:15 PM) Fozz: hee hee.
(05:20:17 PM) Adrianne: :)
(05:20:23 PM) Fozz: What a plethora of quotables.
(05:20:31 PM) Adrianne: I know, and I love every minute of it.
(05:20:49 PM) Adrianne: My tastes lean toward hipster-y cutesy. What can I say?
(05:21:18 PM) Adrianne: And I have a, um, possibly illegal crush on Michael Cera.
(05:21:28 PM) Fozz: heh. it had a Napoleon Dynamite vibe to it too, with the music, the "I'm not popular" characters, and the ruralness of it.
(05:22:36 PM) Adrianne: Except that it was approximately 5,208,639 times better. In my opinion, anyway.
(05:22:54 PM) Fozz: I think it was better, yeah.
(05:23:16 PM) Fozz: Well, except I think the cinematography was more beautiful in ND.
(05:23:22 PM) Fozz: Some of those shots are to die for.
(05:23:42 PM) Fozz: The story of Juno is certainly better. :)
(05:24:01 PM) Fozz: They both have a nice supply of quotables... but Juno's quotables are more sophisticated.
(05:24:41 PM) Adrianne: Agreed.
(05:24:51 PM) Adrianne: Secret:
(05:24:54 PM) Fozz: oh yeah.
(05:24:57 PM) Fozz: Your secret.
(05:25:06 PM) Adrianne: So, one of the veg techs told me that BIO-WEST is going to open an office in SLC. I want to relocate.

That was the first time I knew she was thinking of leaving Logan.

On Tuesday, 7 October, she told me she'd been on the phone with a boy for a couple of hours.

(10:40:57 PM) Fozz: So, what have you been yakkin about this evening? Anything interesting?

(10:41:47 PM) Adrianne: Yeah. It was almost like a first date over the phone.
(10:42:26 PM) Fozz: Who was the other participant?
(10:42:42 PM) Adrianne: He's a friend of a friend
(10:42:55 PM) Fozz: Is he...
(10:43:06 PM) Fozz: Does he have those qualities that are important to you?
(10:43:12 PM) Fozz: Is he aggressive?
(10:43:29 PM) Fozz: Smart?
(10:43:40 PM) Fozz: Complimentary? ;-)
(10:44:03 PM) Adrianne: Well, he added me as a friend on facebook shortly after our mutual friend got a facebook account
(10:44:11 PM) Adrianne: And then he started chatting with me today
(10:44:17 PM) ***Fozz signs onto fb
(10:44:30 PM) Adrianne: And he gave me his number and told me to text him since he had to go to class
(10:44:40 PM) Adrianne: flirty text messages ensued
(10:44:46 PM) Adrianne: And after class, he called and we talked for two hours.
(10:45:12 PM) Adrianne: And I'm supposed to text him now that I'm home, but I don't know what to say
(10:46:06 PM) Fozz: You know what I always say in those cases?
(10:46:10 PM) Fozz: "Meow."
(10:46:14 PM) Fozz: I don't know why.
(10:46:19 PM) Adrianne: Lol
(10:46:28 PM) Adrianne: I don't know...I don't want to freak him out.
(10:46:45 PM) Adrianne: Maybe I'm overthinking it. Perhaps a simple "Hey :)" would do
(10:46:47 PM) Fozz: You could pretend you "accidentally" text'd him.
(10:47:01 PM) Adrianne: Bwahaha. I totally used to do that when I was, oh, 19

We ended up spent a lot of time over the next three months analyzing (and re-analyzing) the interactions between Adrianne and this boy.

The rest of the chat excerpts that follow are roughly chronological from early October until the end of January.

Here's a random amusing excerpt from a conversation on Wednesday, 8 October:

(11:44:13 AM) Adrianne: I feel weird.

(11:49:04 AM) Fozz: I can't confirm that.
(11:49:25 AM) Adrianne: :) It's okay. I don't need any confirmation.

In our discussions about dating and relationships, I shared some bits of a book I had read called "The Two-Step." Here's the first time I told her about it.

(10:11:37 AM) Adrianne: You know, I've gone so long without dating that I'm not sure I really know how to start something anymore. I am definitely good at getting back into the losing sleep to converse part of it.

(10:11:57 AM) Fozz: okay.
(10:13:48 AM) Adrianne: At what point does all the flirting become...reality?
(10:13:49 AM) Adrianne: okay what?
(10:14:11 AM) Fozz: I dunno. Didn't know what else to say.
(10:14:43 AM) Adrianne: you're married
(10:14:44 AM) Fozz: Flirting ?= reality... I dunno... when you're face-to-face.
(10:14:45 AM) Adrianne: You've done that dance
(10:14:55 AM) Fozz: I still do the dance. It's called the 2-step.
(10:15:01 AM) Fozz: it's the only way to stay married.
(10:15:29 AM) Adrianne: This is probably some really great metaphor that I don't get because I'm not a dancer. At all.

Adrianne was, of course, anxious to know what I thought of one of her favorite films and what I thought of the green dress!

(09:51:05 PM) Adrianne: Did you like Atonement?

(09:51:13 PM) Fozz: Not as much as I hoped I would.
(09:51:13 PM) Adrianne: And is that green dress not the most amazing thing EVER?
(09:51:49 PM) Fozz: It is a nice period costume.
(09:52:05 PM) Fozz: Unfortunately, I'm not a big Kiera fan
(09:52:18 PM) Adrianne: lol
(09:52:20 PM) Fozz: If it was worn by someone slightly more... meaty.
(09:52:25 PM) Adrianne: I don't know...
(09:52:30 PM) Adrianne: It makes me wish I was all bony
(09:52:41 PM) Adrianne: stuff that low cut looks sexy on flat girls and tranny on busty ones
(09:52:43 PM) Fozz: Yeah- I don't like that anorexic look.
(09:53:09 PM) Fozz: I thought she looked better in Atonement than any other film I've seen her in.
(09:53:31 PM) Fozz: But I'm a sucker for that period look. Almost a 50s pin-up look.
(09:53:48 PM) Adrianne: I freaking love the pin-up look.
(09:53:53 PM) Fozz: :)
(09:54:00 PM) Adrianne: I love high waisted pencil skirts
(09:54:34 PM) Adrianne: I love all the swing dresses and garden party gowns

I just have to say, the non sequitur nature of so many of our conversations is fun to read now.

(10:51:06 PM) Adrianne: Dag, yo.

(10:51:10 PM) Fozz: Dag?
(10:51:42 PM) Adrianne: I think "Dag, yo" is from Teen Girl Squad
(10:51:50 PM) Fozz: which is what?
(10:52:42 PM) Adrianne: a segment on www.homestarrunner.com
(10:52:48 PM) Fozz: Oh.
(10:52:54 PM) Fozz: I've only watched SB
(10:52:56 PM) Adrianne: I watched it in high school
(10:55:57 PM) Fozz: What's your favorite strongbad?
(10:56:58 PM) Adrianne: Hmmm...
(10:57:03 PM) Adrianne: Children's Book
(10:57:18 PM) Fozz: I'll have to watch that one again.
(11:02:40 PM) Adrianne: Sorry, I had to reset my router
(11:02:48 PM) Fozz: I love it when you talk dirty like that.
(11:03:01 PM) Adrianne: wtf?
(11:03:05 PM) Fozz: hee hee.
(11:03:20 PM) Fozz: Not many girls know how to talk about resetting their routers.
(11:03:36 PM) Adrianne: True
(11:04:15 PM) Fozz: "I had to like push this blue thing on this gray thing and wait for the red thing to do its.... thing."
(11:04:21 PM) Adrianne: Heh

This immediately transitioned into a conversation about boots. She definitely loved to talk about her footwear.

(11:06:41 PM) Adrianne: I wish I was rich: http://www.zappos.com/n/p/dp/42455175/c/38010.html

(11:07:35 PM) Fozz: Hmmm. What would I wish for richness for...
(11:08:28 PM) Adrianne: I could find several more things to wish for richness for,
(11:08:38 PM) Adrianne: but right now I'm thinking about buying some sexy boots.
(11:08:58 PM) Adrianne: The only boots I have are Wellies and (ugh) Uggs.
(11:09:11 PM) Fozz: I'm happy with my Docs.
(11:09:28 PM) Adrianne: I want heeled boots
(11:09:44 PM) Adrianne: And not those cheesy chunky-heeled ones that most girls my age have had since they were 16.
(11:10:28 PM) Fozz: Oh, you want some boots you can gouge someone's cheek with.
(11:10:42 PM) Fozz: Got it.
(11:10:56 PM) Adrianne: Yeah, essentially
(11:11:50 PM) Adrianne: On the non-boot side of things, I'd also like these: http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/3008482/0~2376778~6017238?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=6017238&P=1
(11:12:07 PM) Adrianne: Whoops: http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2994292?refsid=236954_1&refcat=0~2376778~2372808~2372949~2372953&SourceID=1&SlotID=1&origin=related
(11:12:38 PM) Fozz: ok
(11:12:49 PM) Fozz: Not too expensive.
(11:13:12 PM) Adrianne: Nah, but I have a $25 gift card to Nordstrom's

Many times, Adrianne would post the strangest Facebook statuses.

(04:23:16 PM) Fozz: Diabetes is for lovers?

(04:23:22 PM) Adrianne: lol
(04:23:22 PM) Fozz: What's that crap?!
(04:23:30 PM) Adrianne: That's what David Sedaris wrote in my book last night.
(04:23:36 PM) Fozz: Who the crap is that?\
(04:23:47 PM) Adrianne: One of my favorite writers EVER.
(04:24:13 PM) Fozz: EVER?
(04:24:14 PM) Fozz: Wow.
(04:24:17 PM) Fozz: I mean, WOW.
(04:25:00 PM) Adrianne: Yeah.

Adrianne's decision to leave a job she loved and move back to the Salt Lake area was something she really struggled with. It's interesting to me that she never really struggled what decision she felt was the right one to make, but more how to live with that decision.

(12:36:15 AM) Adrianne: I feel wretched.

(12:36:46 AM) Fozz: I felt wretched about 2.5 hours ago.
(12:36:52 AM) Fozz: I still feel semi-wretched.
(12:37:12 AM) Adrianne: I feel like I've been smacked upside the face with a pillowcase full of bricks.
(12:37:16 AM) Fozz: Why?
(12:38:46 AM) Fozz: Or do you know why?
(12:39:31 AM) Adrianne: Because I don't want to quit BIO-WEST.
(12:39:38 AM) Fozz: Okay.
(12:39:43 AM) Adrianne: But it's the only thing keeping me in Logan
(12:39:57 AM) Fozz: You know...
(12:40:04 AM) Fozz: I know they have people who work remote...
(12:40:09 AM) Adrianne: Just one.
(12:40:13 AM) Fozz: Does Melissa Stamp still work in SLC?
(12:40:18 AM) Adrianne: Yeah
(12:40:24 AM) Adrianne: But she's not a lowly editorial/IT person
(12:40:45 AM) Fozz: So, what's got you down on Cache Valley?
(12:40:46 AM) Adrianne: I mean, I'll talk to Sandra about the possibility of helming the SLC office if there's a need for that
(12:40:52 AM) Adrianne: I hate the winter here
(12:40:57 AM) Fozz: Oh. me too.
(12:41:01 AM) Fozz: I mean, the winter'
(12:41:06 AM) Adrianne: All my friends are graduating, getting married, having babies, leaving.
(12:41:07 AM) Fozz: I mean, the winter's aren't that great in SL, either.
(12:41:13 AM) Adrianne: But at least I'd be near things
(12:41:16 AM) Fozz: Yeah.
(12:41:31 AM) Adrianne: I miss out on a lot of things in SLC that I regret
(12:41:47 AM) Adrianne: And I know this is a lame thing to say
(12:41:52 AM) Fozz: Would you move back in with your parents?
(12:41:55 AM) Adrianne: But really? I hate that I don't have a dating life.
(12:42:07 AM) Adrianne: Oh, heavens no. No no no. I'm also looking at apartments down there
(12:42:33 AM) Adrianne: I wish I could live in someone's basement or something
(12:42:40 AM) Adrianne: But stuff like that is hard to come by
(12:42:41 AM) Fozz: :)
(12:42:47 AM) Adrianne: I have friends who do that
(12:42:49 AM) Fozz: OTOH, in Logan, everyone's got a basement.
(12:42:54 AM) Fozz: (for rent)
(12:43:00 AM) Adrianne: They prefer it because they don't have to have roommates.
(12:43:08 AM) Adrianne: Yeah, but I need to get out of here.
(12:43:09 AM) Adrianne: BAD.
(12:44:30 AM) Fozz: It was really hard for me to leave Logan.
(12:45:51 AM) Adrianne: It's going to be hard for me, too
(12:46:02 AM) Adrianne: But for the last few weeks, I've felt like I need to
(12:46:31 AM) Adrianne: I'm going to pray and fast about it tomorrow.
(12:46:40 AM) Fozz: that's a good idea.
(12:46:45 AM) Adrianne: And it's weird, because I feel like I already know the answer.
(12:46:46 AM) Fozz: My wife would say to do that.
(12:46:52 AM) Fozz: I never think about doing that.
(12:47:20 AM) Fozz: I think you're supposed to make your decision (which you sound pretty solid on) and then get reassurance through prayer.
(12:48:19 AM) Fozz: I'll ask around to see if anyone has a room or a basement available.
(12:48:20 AM) Adrianne: And I reeeeeally hope I don't cry when I talk to Sandra.
(12:48:44 AM) Adrianne: I've been so torn up over the whole situation that I feel like my tear ducts are in a constant state of vomit.
(12:48:52 AM) Fozz: Not pleasant.
(12:49:25 AM) Adrianne: No.
(12:49:35 AM) Adrianne: My mom called me today and I just couldn't stop crying.
(12:49:37 AM) Adrianne: It was horrible.
(12:50:02 AM) Fozz: but, yeah, if you're not in school and not "hitched," it can be tough to exist in Logan. The place can be sorely depressing.
(12:50:15 AM) Fozz: I went through a few periods like that.
(12:50:26 AM) Fozz: That was when i was in school...
(12:50:54 AM) Fozz: so I'd take off for a couple quarters (we were on quarters back then, not semesters), work in SL for a while or just be depressed in SL for a while.
(12:51:06 AM) Adrianne: I just never imagined that I would come to hate this place so much
(12:51:07 AM) Fozz: What did your mom say? Good relationship with your mom?
(12:51:16 AM) Adrianne: Very
(12:51:26 AM) Adrianne: She thinks I need to pray about it
(12:51:31 AM) Adrianne: But she also thinks I need to get out of Logan
(12:51:56 AM) Fozz: I wish my sister had never moved to Cache Valley.
(12:52:10 AM) Fozz: But, I can't really say that...
(12:52:22 AM) Fozz: because if she hadn't moved to Cache Valley, I wouldn't be where I am.
(12:52:30 AM) Fozz: I wouldn't have gone to USU.
(12:52:34 AM) Fozz: May not have gone to college.
(12:52:42 AM) Fozz: I wouldn't have met my wife.
...
(12:54:16 AM) Adrianne: Yeah, I stayed because I had good work
(12:54:34 AM) Fozz: And the more I laught at those who look down their nose at me because I choose to live "in the city." heh heh.
(12:55:22 AM) Fozz: Well, I'll help any way I can/
(12:55:39 AM) Fozz: I'm sure Sandra and Chadd will try to work something out with you if you need it.
(12:55:49 AM) Adrianne: I'm still scared to bring it up at all
(12:55:57 AM) Adrianne: Because I'm perfectly happy with my job
(12:56:09 AM) Adrianne: But not the place I live
(12:56:32 AM) Fozz: Would you be willing to drive up to Logan a couple days a week?
(12:57:38 AM) Adrianne: The thought isn't ideal.
(12:57:45 AM) Adrianne: But with gas reimbursement, I'd live with it.
(12:58:48 AM) Adrianne: I do have places I can stay up here.
(01:01:00 AM) Fozz: I should try to go to bed.
(01:01:11 AM) Fozz: Let me know what happens if we don't chat again before then.
(01:01:22 AM) Adrianne: Alrighty
(01:01:27 AM) Fozz: Chin... UP!
(01:01:33 AM) Adrianne: :) Okay.

Here's another fun, amusing gem to read.

(06:13:39 PM)

Fozz: I need to move all my personal stuff off the Iodynamics servers... just in case.
(06:13:53 PM) Fozz: http://www.sonsofnothing.com/ is huge.
(06:14:27 PM) Fozz: Looks like 2.6GB
(06:15:12 PM) Adrianne: Psh, that's chump space.
(06:15:19 PM) Fozz: For a website?
(06:16:39 PM) Adrianne: Well, you'd know that better than me.
(06:17:07 PM) Adrianne: But we have employees here at BIO-WEST who move more than that regularly for GIS use.
(06:17:16 PM) Fozz: Sure.
(06:17:59 PM) Adrianne: So I was just being a smartass. I do that from time to time. :)
(06:18:05 PM) Fozz: NO!
(06:18:11 PM) Fozz: That's not true!
(06:18:16 PM) Fozz: NOoooOOoooOOOOoooo!
(06:18:19 PM) Fozz: That's IMPOSSIBLE!
(06:18:20 PM) Adrianne: Heh
(06:18:25 PM) Adrianne: I know. It's a shocker.

This snippet is a perfect example of Adrianne's occasional self-deprecation, but she handles it with such style!

(02:30:51 PM) Adrianne: Well, I am REALLY pathetic.

(02:30:56 PM) Adrianne: So I'm just one step away from that.
(02:31:04 PM) Adrianne: Which still puts me in the pathetic area.
(02:31:08 PM) Fozz: pfft.
(02:35:37 PM) Adrianne: What?
(02:36:53 PM) Fozz: Well, telling people you're pathetic. That doesn't help!
(02:37:18 PM) Adrianne: I'm only admitting it to you. :)

Would you find it amazing that Adrianne had things to say about musical artists?

(04:27:41 PM) Adrianne: LOL

(04:27:50 PM) Adrianne: Every boy I know likes Smashing Pumpkins.
(04:27:56 PM) Adrianne: Well, that's an exaggerations
(04:27:59 PM) Adrianne: *exaggeration
(04:28:03 PM) Adrianne: But most of my BFs have.
(04:28:10 PM) Adrianne: Which is fine; I love 'em.
(04:28:52 PM) Fozz: Isn't the band like... disbanded
(04:29:17 PM) Adrianne: They reformed a couple of years ago, minus James Iha.
(04:29:34 PM) Adrianne: Which, on one hand, is a terrible shame. I'm not sure they'll ever generate new material as well without him.
(04:30:03 PM) Adrianne: On the other hand, Billy Corgan is a lyrical genius, so I'm all for his reappearance in the musical arena.

Usually, Adrianne didn't really express much of an interest in discussing politics even though it was a hot topic in October-November 2008. In this chat before the 2008 election, Adrianne told me she was just not going to vote.

(12:14:39 AM) Adrianne: I'm not going to complain about what happens

(12:14:46 AM) Adrianne: That's not how I am
(12:15:02 AM) Fozz: Do you know who John Stossel is?
(12:15:03 AM) Adrianne: So when people tell me I won't be able to complain, I just say, "okay."
(12:15:05 AM) Adrianne: no
(12:15:19 AM) Fozz: He's a reporter for ABC's 20/20 program.
(12:15:28 AM) Fozz: He did this report about a month ago...
(12:15:52 AM) Fozz: where he went to one of these "rock the vote" type concerts... where they were encouraging all these young people to be politically active, campaign, and vote.
(12:16:18 AM) Fozz: and he asked a bunch of these kids who were there- simple questions about our government.
(12:16:34 AM) Fozz: A handful could answer the questions, but the majority could not.
(12:16:46 AM) Fozz: It was funny and sad at the same time.
(12:17:01 AM) Fozz: "What is Roe v. Wade?" "That's like a black person... and a white person?"
(12:17:15 AM) Fozz: Stuff like that.
(12:17:17 AM) Adrianne: sad.
(12:17:33 AM) Fozz: Stossel suggested that maybe we should NOT be encouraging these people to vote.
(12:17:43 AM) Fozz: that their vote would, in fact, be bad for our country.
(12:17:57 AM) Adrianne: lol
(12:17:59 AM) Adrianne: Yeah
(12:18:45 AM) Fozz: I swear, the stupid vote is huge this year.
(12:19:02 AM) Adrianne: Yep
(12:19:03 AM) Fozz: Ah well.
(12:19:13 AM) Adrianne: Aren't you glad I'm not contributing?!
(12:19:19 AM) Fozz: Heh heh. no!
(12:19:19 AM) Adrianne: :)

Here's a random little nugget that makes me smile.

(02:19:40 PM) Adrianne: If I'm Violet, who are you?

(02:19:52 PM) Fozz: Not sure.
(02:20:18 PM) Fozz: Sully? :)
(02:20:35 PM) Adrianne: That's a different movie!

Did you know Adrianne loved to talk about movies? Yeah! Really!

(12:16:55 AM) ***Fozz hums rocky music.

(12:18:15 AM) Adrianne: Turns out, I've never seen Rocky.
(12:18:29 AM) Fozz: Oh dear.
(12:18:38 AM) Adrianne: I've avoided it my whole life due to people making stupid, "yo, Adrian!" comments to me since I was approximately 12.
(12:18:47 AM) Fozz: That's worth a Saturday afternoon alone.
(12:19:10 AM) Fozz: Talia Shire is adorable in that movie.
(12:20:50 AM) Adrianne: Huh. Well, maybe some day.
(12:21:01 AM) Fozz: It won an oscar.
(12:21:08 AM) Adrianne: so?
(12:21:11 AM) Adrianne: lo
(12:21:12 AM) Adrianne: *lol
(12:21:24 AM) Fozz: Yeah- that doesn't mean squat anymore, does it?
(12:21:49 AM) Fozz: academy went downhill in the late 90s.
(12:21:51 AM) Adrianne: not really, no.
(12:22:15 AM) Adrianne: The day that Good Will Hunting lost Best Picture to Titanic...that was when it officially jumped out the window.
(12:22:21 AM) Fozz: heh heh.
(12:22:34 AM) Fozz: I was just thinking that Titanic won- that wasn't so bad.
(12:22:41 AM) Adrianne: It was a fine film.
(12:22:47 AM) Adrianne: But not better than GWH.
(12:22:51 AM) Fozz: I saw GWH with my mom.
(12:22:55 AM) Adrianne: awkward.
(12:22:56 AM) Fozz: that was tough.
(12:22:58 AM) Fozz: yeah.
(12:23:02 AM) Fozz: That was f-in hard!
(12:23:05 AM) Adrianne: My brother had to watch it for a class
(12:23:08 AM) Adrianne: he's 17
(12:23:15 AM) Adrianne: I volunteered to watch it with him
(12:23:21 AM) Adrianne: I think my mom was relieved
(12:23:32 AM) Adrianne: though she'd never admit it because she always lectures me about rated R movies
(12:24:09 AM) Fozz: And then there was the LOTR fiasco.
(12:25:01 AM) Fozz: You should come over when I get the theater finished!
(12:26:20 AM) Adrianne: Can I bring my boyfriend?
(12:26:24 AM) Fozz: Sure.
(12:26:30 AM) Adrianne: lol
(12:26:32 AM) Fozz: (you have one?)
(12:26:36 AM) Adrianne: Nope.
(12:26:39 AM) Adrianne: working on it, though.
(12:26:44 AM) Fozz: (If not, I've got a blow-up one you can use.)
(12:27:11 AM) Adrianne: Eek.
(12:28:00 AM) Fozz: You eeker.

If there's one thing Adrianne could not understand was why people liked the Twilight series of books or the Twilight film that came out in November 2008. I had so much fun giving her crap about that and observing the results.

(10:10:59 AM)

Fozz: heh heh. you should read CVZ's daughter's status updates today on FB
(10:11:21 AM) Fozz: Gretchen VanZanten can die happy because Twilight is everything she wanted and more!!!
(10:11:26 AM) Adrianne: Barfy barf.
(10:11:48 AM) Fozz: Gretchen VanZanten at 2:44am November 21Yeah I know what I want for christmas! Somma those cullen boys! Holy crows they were so so so hot! Meeting the Cullens was the best scene ever!!
(10:15:47 AM) Adrianne: Was she joking?
(10:15:54 AM) Fozz: Hell no.
(10:16:15 AM) Adrianne: Yikes.

Random nugget:

(07:13:47 PM) Adrianne: Yo.

(07:13:57 PM) Adrianne: Sorry about earlier...I hope I didn't seem insensitive.
(07:31:41 PM) Fozz: You suck!
(07:31:43 PM) Fozz: ;-)
(07:31:50 PM) Fozz: What happened earlier?

This random nugget was as Adrianne was getting ready to leave Logan for Salt Lake. She had a date planned.

(05:45:13 PM) Adrianne: Wahoo!

(05:50:17 PM) Adrianne: Man, I'm actually going to be able to leave by 6:00 tonight. That makes me so happy
(05:50:30 PM) Fozz: Wheeee
(05:51:08 PM) Adrianne: I'm so giddy right now. What's wrong with me?
(05:55:44 PM) Adrianne: Welp, I'm leaving.
(05:55:54 PM) Fozz: Welp!
(05:56:14 PM) Adrianne: Welp indeed.
(05:57:23 PM) Adrianne: Bye!
(05:57:33 PM) Fozz: Have fun storming the castle!

We worked together on an e-mail migration project for BIO-West and occasionally Adrianne would need my help resolving some issues. We had fun even when we were chatting about geeky tech stuff.

(01:52:44 PM) Adrianne: Um...can I bug you?

(01:52:51 PM) Adrianne: I mean, I'm sure I'm more than capable.
(01:53:00 PM) Fozz: yeah- you do it all the time. What's stopping you now?
(01:53:29 PM) Adrianne: This time I'm being polite. :)
(01:53:40 PM) Fozz: Sup?
(01:53:47 PM) Adrianne: mcheney
(01:53:57 PM) Adrianne: gets this error upon webmail login
(01:54:00 PM) Adrianne: OpenWebMail ERROR
Couldn't create /home/mcheney/.openwebmail/db (Permission denied)
(01:56:04 PM) Fozz: Corrected.
(01:58:40 PM) Adrianne: Thank you muchly!
(01:59:01 PM) Fozz: And I made sure that problem doesn't exist on any other accounts (it doesn't)
(01:59:53 PM) Adrianne: My hero.
(02:00:26 PM) ***Fozz puts his hands on his hips and looks off to his right as his cape flaps behind him.
(02:00:41 PM) Adrianne: Heh.

Adrianne finally had plans in place for her move back to Salt Lake and she was excited about it.

(01:21:24 PM)

Fozz: So, what is up?
(01:21:30 PM) Fozz: Did you find a place to plunk?
(01:21:34 PM) Fozz: Did you find a place to labor?
(01:21:45 PM) Fozz: Did you find someone to plunk with?
(01:24:20 PM) Adrianne: plunk?
(01:24:34 PM) Fozz: plunk.
(01:25:04 PM) Adrianne: Um, live?
(01:25:11 PM) Fozz: live. yeah.
(01:25:33 PM) Adrianne: I'll be crashing with the parentals until I find something
(02:07:39 PM) Adrianne: and I did find a place to labor
(02:07:50 PM) Fozz: Where?!
(02:08:23 PM) Adrianne: You can't repeat any of this, by the way
(02:08:28 PM) Adrianne: I haven't told anyone at BIO-WEST yet.
(02:08:31 PM) Fozz: heh. okay.
(02:08:34 PM) Fozz: Promise.
(02:08:37 PM) Adrianne: Swear on your life.
(02:08:37 PM) Adrianne: Swear on Linux!
(02:08:43 PM) Fozz: I SWEAR ON TUX!
(02:08:48 PM) Adrianne: tux?
(02:08:50 PM) Fozz: Tux!
(02:09:05 PM) Fozz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux
(02:09:32 PM) Adrianne: Aw, he's so cute.
(02:10:24 PM) Adrianne: I got a job at my dad's office
(02:10:31 PM) ***Fozz gasps
(02:10:34 PM) Fozz: WHat does your dad do?
(02:12:49 PM) Adrianne: Well, he's the general agent for National Life of Vermont
(02:12:53 PM) Adrianne: but he has his own company in the same suite
(02:12:59 PM) Adrianne: and that would be Sovereign Financial
(02:13:06 PM) Fozz: Investments?
(02:13:12 PM) Adrianne: yeah
(02:13:13 PM) Fozz: Where is his office?
(02:13:19 PM) Adrianne: downtown SLC
(02:13:24 PM) Fozz: And what will you be doing?
(02:13:33 PM) Adrianne: Tech writing, marketing
(02:13:38 PM) Adrianne: updating website stuff
(02:13:41 PM) Fozz: cool.
(02:13:44 PM) Adrianne: There's so much to do up there
(02:13:54 PM) Fozz: Well, let me know if you need some outside IT consulting. :)
(02:14:00 PM) Adrianne: You know I will!
(02:14:04 PM) Fozz: Linux file server, etc. :)
(02:14:05 PM) Adrianne: I won't be working with him, really.
(02:14:12 PM) Adrianne: I'll be working with the office manager
(02:14:16 PM) Adrianne: she loves me, though. :)
(02:14:34 PM) Adrianne: when she found out I was moving here, she asked him to find out if I was interested in working with her
(02:14:42 PM) Fozz: nice.
(02:14:46 PM) Adrianne: and he was a little concerned with the whole nepotism thing
(02:14:51 PM) Adrianne: and she said she didn't care one bit.
(02:14:52 PM) Adrianne: lol
(02:26:12 PM) Adrianne: So, yeah.
(02:26:23 PM) Adrianne: I'm not saying anything here until after I get my Christmas bonus.
(02:37:47 PM) Fozz: :)
(02:38:08 PM) Adrianne: What?
(02:38:11 PM) Adrianne: Can you blame me?
(02:38:14 PM) Fozz: nope.

It was time to tease Adrianne about Twilight again.

(12:53:47 AM) Fozz: I went to Twilight last night.

(12:53:49 AM) Fozz: :)
(12:53:51 AM) Adrianne: BARF.
(12:53:52 AM) Fozz: (finally)
(12:54:02 AM) Adrianne: seriously, I don't want to talk about that.
(12:54:09 AM) Fozz: Well made show, but definitely made for those who read and enjoyed the books.
(12:54:24 AM) Adrianne: BARF.
(12:54:25 AM) Fozz: (Unlike Harry Potter - I couldn't stand the book(s), but enjoyed the films)
(12:54:47 AM) Adrianne: I'm this close to logging off...
(12:55:07 AM) Fozz: But anyway- I saw a trailer for Confessions Of A Shopaholic
(12:55:12 AM) Fozz: Thought of you and your shoe thing.
(12:55:35 AM) Adrianne: turns out you're not the first person to tell me that...
(12:55:35 AM) Adrianne: lol

The following is part of a conversation where she was analyzing a dating "conundrum" with me.

(04:59:29 PM) Fozz: heh heh.

(05:01:07 PM) Adrianne: what?
(05:01:22 PM) Fozz: Let me see.
(05:01:27 PM) Fozz: "heh heh."
(05:02:07 PM) Adrianne: what are you "heh heh"ing?
(05:03:05 PM) Fozz: you being all...
(05:03:11 PM) Fozz: waity.
(05:03:12 PM) Adrianne: prudish?
(05:03:19 PM) Fozz: Oooh. You're a walking thesaurus!
(05:03:48 PM) Adrianne: you're a walking smartass.
(05:03:48 PM) Adrianne: lol
(05:03:52 PM) Fozz: heh heh.
(05:07:50 PM) Adrianne: admit it -- that was good

This one still cracks me up.

(09:26:01 AM) Adrianne: can you do me a humongous favor?

(09:26:14 AM) Fozz: I dunno. '
(09:26:17 AM) Fozz: Maybe
(09:26:24 AM) Adrianne: can you call my cell phone?
(09:26:30 AM) Adrianne: I can't find it
(09:26:32 AM) Fozz: Heh.
(09:26:34 AM) Fozz: Sure.
(09:27:28 AM) Adrianne: crap
(09:27:33 AM) Adrianne: I can hear it somewhere.
(09:28:06 AM) Adrianne: got it
(09:28:08 AM) Adrianne: Thanks!
(09:28:11 AM) Fozz: K.
(09:28:13 AM) Fozz: np

Random nugget!

(04:08:06 PM) Fozz: Sup wit yew?

(04:16:44 PM) Adrianne: just wrapping up as much as I can at BeeDub
(04:20:35 PM) Fozz: k.
(04:23:29 PM) Adrianne: crazy, isn't it?
(04:23:37 PM) Fozz: yes. crazy.
(04:35:14 PM) Adrianne: I feel weird!
(04:35:25 PM) Fozz: Well, you look funny too.
(04:35:33 PM) Fozz: ;-)
(04:45:31 PM) Adrianne: thank you.
(04:45:52 PM) Fozz: ;-) ;-) ;-)
(04:46:07 PM) Adrianne: what's with your winkiness?
(04:47:01 PM) Fozz: something in my eye.
(04:54:57 PM) Adrianne: ...okay...

Maybe it was because she was an English snob, but Adrianne didn't like me going into phonetic-spelling mode this time. Then we talked about her moving to Salt Lake.

(12:40:44 AM) Fozz: So... Chuptoo?

(12:40:45 AM) Fozz: Yat?
(12:41:10 AM) Adrianne: yat?
(12:41:23 AM) Fozz: Yat?!
(12:41:25 AM) Fozz: Say it.
(12:41:29 AM) Fozz: hey you. Yat?
(12:41:49 AM) Fozz: "Where are you at?"
(12:41:58 AM) Fozz: Chadoon?
(12:42:06 AM) Adrianne: oh boy
(12:42:18 AM) Adrianne: I'm sitting in bed with my laptop
(12:42:27 AM) Fozz: In SLC or Loogun?
(12:42:34 AM) Adrianne: Logan
(12:42:42 AM) Fozz: When you moovun?
(12:42:55 AM) Adrianne: pleeeeease stop.
(12:43:04 AM) Fozz: wha?
(12:43:12 AM) Adrianne: and to answer your question, tomorrow and friday
(12:43:34 AM) Fozz: Got everything all taken care of?
(12:43:40 AM) Adrianne: with what?
(12:43:43 AM) Fozz: the move.
(12:44:42 AM) Adrianne: heavens no
(12:44:48 AM) Adrianne: haven't done hardly anyting
(12:44:50 AM) Adrianne: *anything
(12:45:36 AM) Adrianne: I tried to motivate myself to pack when I got home
(12:45:42 AM) Adrianne: but one of my friends came over and we watched a movie.
(12:45:52 AM) Fozz: What movie?
(12:45:59 AM) Adrianne: that I won't say
(12:46:05 AM) Adrianne: because it's embarrassing
(12:46:08 AM) Fozz: Wyzat?
(12:46:13 AM) Adrianne: because it's a stupid movie
(12:46:16 AM) Fozz: heh heh.
(12:46:19 AM) Adrianne: and yet, I laughed a lot
(12:46:23 AM) Adrianne: I'd even seen it before...

I learned early on that Adrianne

LOVED "30 Rock" and LOVED Tina Fey. What cracks me up about this, however, is her reaction when I said I didn't have an opinion about Will Ferrell. Chadd shared a story with me where she did almost the exact same thing to him when he didn't care for a band she asked him about.

(01:10:32 AM) Adrianne: reason number eleventy billion why I love Tina Fey: http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/01/12/so-about-those-internet-commenters-tina-fey-mentioned-video/

(01:12:19 AM) Fozz: That dress is a little... extreme.
(01:13:03 AM) Adrianne: you don't like it?
(01:13:26 AM) Fozz: It's a little extreme.
(01:14:07 AM) Adrianne: did you watch the video?
(01:14:14 AM) Fozz: yes
(01:15:23 AM) Adrianne: I love her.
(01:15:35 AM) Fozz: Yeah.
(01:17:11 AM) Adrianne: How do you feel about Will Ferrell?
(01:17:35 AM) Fozz: I'm ambivalent.
(01:17:45 AM) Adrianne: nevermind then

I think this is the only time Adrianne asked

my opinion about politics and not the other way around. And then... she zinged me.

(09:44:25 PM) Adrianne: your thoughts on the newest bailout?

(09:44:33 PM) Fozz: Pfft.
(09:44:52 PM) Fozz: Only 3% is meant to be spent this year.
(09:44:59 PM) Fozz: I'm not sure how that's supposed to help the economy.
(09:45:14 PM) Fozz: In fact, hardly any of it seems like economic stimulus at all.
(09:45:23 PM) Fozz: It's just a bunch of huge pork.
(09:47:25 PM) Adrianne: that's what she said.

I only knew Adrianne as a friend for about four and a half months before her death. That's about as long as I spent doing a college internship back in 1997 and I can't remember most of the names of the people I worked then, but I highly doubt I'll ever forget or stop missing the chats with Ms. Adrianne McBride.

I have been blogging off and on since 2001. You might even say I was blogging before that because I was posting stuff to my personal website before the word “blog” meant anything, starting probably in 1994.

I suppose it’s a significant milestone when you realize one blog isn’t enough.

Now I have three.

I have split the entries in my archive (whew) into three separate MoveableType blogs pertaining to politics, tech, and general (everything else). But, to accomodate people who are used to coming to the Fozzolog to see everything, I’ve set up a Planet aggregator that parses the syndication feeds from the three blogs and displays a summary of sorts of everything that’s on those individual blogs.

The Planet page is at the same URL the Fozzolog has been at for years: http://www.fozzilinymoo.org/Fozzolog/.

The new blogs are at the following URLs:

• Tech Fozzolog: http://fozzolog.fozzilinymoo.org/tech/
• Politics Fozzolog: http://fozzolog.fozzilinymoo.org/politics/
• General Fozzolog: http://fozzolog.fozzilinymoo.org/general/

Maya and Lucy started school today. Our neighborhood elementary school, Foothills Elementary, is on a year-round schedule, so that is why they're starting so early compared to traditional schools. Maya started fifth grade and Lucy started second grade. Eli will be starting kindergarten, but he'll be on a traditional schedule as he is attending an all-day kindergarten program provided by our day care provider.

Christine went with the girls to school this morning and took a camera, but it had dead batteries, so I went this afternoon and got some pictures after school. You can see those at <http://picasaweb.google.com/fozzmoo/MayaAndLucyStartSchool2008/> or enjoy the embedded slideshow below.

I taught at church today. I’m a member of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints and I was called by my ecclesiastical leaders to be a teacher, once of month, to the Elders Quorum (men 18 years old and older who haven’t been called to be in the High Priests group yet).

This year we are teaching from a new book the Church has produced called Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith which contains lessons taken from the recorded writings, sermons, etc. of the first prophet and president of the LDS Church: Joseph Smith.

This book is fascinating to me because the way Smith taught is different in many ways from how later and more contemporary leaders taught and teach today. I think this is partly because he had a big job on his shoulders: to convince people to join his new church and that the beliefs the religion is based on are grounded in truth.

Today’s lesson was on missionary work and sharing the gospel with others. I started a group discussion with the class about why members are reluctant to share their gospel beliefs with others in their life who are either less active members of the church or non-members. Lots of people responded saying it just has become increasingly inappropriate in today’s society to share such personal, sacred things with people, that we’re supposed to just accept other people’s beliefs regardless of what they are.

This is in contrast to the way Joseph Smith behaved. He relished the opportunity to speak to people about his beliefs. He encouraged missionary work among all members. He explains at one point that Christ died so that people can be saved, but only if they have the opportunity to learn of the Plan Of Salvation. That’s where church members come in: Sharing the knowledge of the Plan Of Salvation with those who haven’t yet had that opportunity.

To close up the lesson, I read from Elder Russell M. Ballard’s talk in December 2007 in which he talks specifically about using New Media to Support the Work of the Church and encourages members to write about their religion, their beliefs in their blogs, to participate in online discussion forums social networking communities, to comment on online news stories that may misrepresent the beliefs of the LDS Church, etc.

Having not really written much of a religious nature on the Fozzolog, I thought I would give it a shot.

I should have attended this service. I definitely want to make a point to attend it next year, regardless of who is speaking, because of the way it made me feel to watch it.

KBYU has streaming video of the service. If you want to skip straight to Glenn Beck's speech, you can seek to 50-55% into the stream where Stephen Covey (yes, that Stephen Covey) introduces Glenn. 

Glenn shares some personal stories, stories from the history of our country, and some counsel for those "looking for a leader" in today's troublesome times.

Leadership and Self Deception: Getting Out of the Box by Arbinger Institute

My review

rating: 5 of 5 stars
Wow. What an amazing, enlightening, inspiring book.

I've never read a book that seems targeted at business management technique or strategy that read like a novel. While the plot of this novel is a bit shallow, it makes the material so much easier to read and absorb.

As I read this book, it occurred to me the authors are really saying the key to all productive relationships is humility. But, that's just too vague of a concept (and would make for a much shorter book), so they broke it down into cause and effect discussions from multiple angles to demonstrate evidence of its truthfulness.

I can't help feeling the urge to purchase a copy of this book for every one in my family and those I work with. It's that profound.

View all my reviews on GoodReads.com.

Unlike many people I know, mostly women for some reason, I didn't go to a August 2nd midnight release party for Stephenie Meyer's latest book, "Breaking Dawn". No, I just pre-ordered it on Amazon and checked for its arrival every day starting on August 2nd. It didn't arrive until the 6th or 7th, those jerks!

This is the fourth book in Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series and it apparently ends the series as we know it. Meyer has hinted we may see some followup books that may repeat the stories in the previous books, but from a different character's perspective. I think the soil is fertile also for future books about other characters from the stories.

So, I liked this book. I think I could have liked it a lot more, but after three amazing, best-selling novels, my theory is Stephenie Meyer knew she didn't have to work that hard. As a result of her laziness, the story isn't as imaginative as the first three and the writing isn't as rich.

That being said, I have to admit Stephenie Meyer could write 750 pages of Bella Swan walking alone on a dirt road thinking to herself and I'd just lap it all up with glee. For the most part, I love the characters in the Twilight series, especially Bella, and could tolerate a lot of stuff as long as Stephenie Meyer writes about Bella.

A couple days after the book was released, my wife told me that one of her coworkers told her they'd seen where someone had fashioned a message using plastic cups in the chain link fencing on a highway overpass that read "Bella dies!"

Well, that kind of spoiled it for me!

This being a vampire story, however, death isn't necessarily the end of a character's story. While I'm sure the sight of that plastic cup message caused a lot of people's hearts to skip a beat, I don't think it's really that big of a spoiler.

The Twilight series is aimed at young adults, but "Breaking Dawn" is definitely more of an adult book. than your standard young adult novel. While the adult themes are vague and lacking in the details you might find in a trashy paperback romance novel, this probably isn't a book I'd recommend to anyone under 15.

That being said, I think Stephenie did a marvelous job of writing more mature material without necessarily offending too many of her virtue-obsessed readers (Meyer is Mormon and has a significant Mormon readership).

There were a few points in the book where I found myself closing the book and mouthing "Holy ****!" because I couldn't believe what I had just read. While some of the other reviews I've read indicated they thought the story was very predictable, I guess I fell right into it and lapped it up so much I didn't see what others plainly saw coming.

I didn't like what happens to Jacob in this book, but I'm not sure what Meyer could have done differently. Maybe she could have let him have what he wanted (Bella) and then kill him. Yeah! No, I can't see her doing that.

I also didn't like the way Charlie was handled. It seemed... too easy.

The "monsters" in "Breaking Dawn" seemed a lot less frightning, with a couple exceptions, than in the previous books and my theory on that goes back to Meyer's unfortunate laziness. Just about every monster-character seems to embody civility and control, unlike in previous stories. That is a bit of a let-down because I found the contrast of behavior between the monsters, the humans, and the exceptional monsters to be a major component of the stories. In Breaking Dawn, not so much. Even the amazing, spectacular, "monstrous" things that happen to Bella are conveniently downplayed and controlled like they're no big deal.

Buy your copy today at Amazon!

How often do you make a difference in other people's lives? I often feel I don't make much of a difference in anyone's lives, mostly because I often seem to be on auto-pilot, tending to my own affairs and minding my own business. Some people, on the other hand, make it their life's work to help others in need.

I'm not suggesting that we should all beat ourselves up for not being more charitable or supportive, but I would like to share something I did that I know will help someone out who is a tough spot. The good news is that you can do the same exact thing!

Monica Ramos and Patty Compean

I don't think many people have heard the story of Monica Ramos and Patty Compean. Their husbands are serving time in prison, currently in solitary confinement. I believe they were unfairly convicted and sentenced for crimes they did not commit.

I first heard about this story on the radio and Glenn Beck has talked a lot about it. However, don't be misled into believing this is a conservative or Republican issue. No, this is an American issue and a case where the government has conspired against its own people.

You can read the story that landed Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean in jail on Wikipedia or a number of other sites. The short version of the story is this: Ramos and Compean were border guards working the US-Mexico border in Texas. In 2005, they were in pursuit of a drug smuggler who fled after they stopped his van (which was full of drugs). There was a shot fired, and the smuggler ran away. While it appeared no one got hurt, the smuggler was apparently struck in the buttock with the bullet. Later, the US government granted the smuggler immunity for his testimony against Compean and Ramos on charges they covered up the shooting and acted out of order. The immunity included a border crossing pass and while the trial was underway, the smuggler was apprehended again with a another load of drugs, but let go because he had immunity. In addition, it appears the US government paid for medical treatment for his gunshot wound.

After Ramos and Compean were sentenced to prison, their attorneys, of course, filed appeals. Meanwhile, members of congress, talk radio personalities, and concerned individuals in Texas and around the country, started digging up as much information as they could about the case. It was revealed the US district attorney that prosecuted the case lied repeatedly about the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case. During the trial, he requested and was granted that information about the drug smuggler would be sealed so that the jury would not discover he had been caught smuggling a second load of drugs since the original incident.

The appeal was finally read by a panel of the 5th circuit court of appeals about five months ago. Those in attendance of the hearings said the judges were very concerned that the case was mishandled and chastised the prosecuting attorneys for prosecuting on ridiculous charges, and generally bungling the case so badly. However, five months later, just a week or two ago, the court upheld the sentences and only dropped minor charges against the men.

Many believe these men are political prisoners and that the fault goes clear to the White House. The US attorney general has longtime ties with Alberto Gonzales and President George W. Bush. Congress and others have asked President Bush to commute or pardon these men who were just trying to do their jobs as border guards, but he has done nothing and has said nothing.

Others believe the Mexican government is involved as well. Why? I don't know.

It is terrible that these men are in prison, but many don't realize the suffering their families have been going through. Both men are married and have children. These families no longer have a primary breadwinner and must deal with the stress and emotional trauma of having a loved unjustly imprisoned.

It probably goes without saying, Monica Ramos and Patty Compean are hurting-- financially, mentally, emotionally, and otherwise.

A local talk radio host in Houston set up a fundraiser to help these families and word got to Glenn Beck. He had both women on his radio show last week and asked one how much her rent was that she was struggling to pay. She told him it was $11,000 or so for the year. Glenn told her he would be writing her a personal check for $11,000 and would write one in the same amount for the other family.

I've followed this story for months and was heartbroken to hear that the families were struggling. One of the women said her son had been persecuted at school and that is one of the reasons they had moved. I was ready to donate some money myself even before Glenn announced his donation.

So, today, I wrote two checks. One to Patty Compean and one to Monica Ramos. I don't have the kind of money Glenn Beck does, but I sent fifty dollars and I'm sure it will help with something. Hopefully, I can make this a regular thing, sending a little money every month. I hope many others are doing the same thing. These families will suffer regardless of how much money people send because they can't be with the husbands/fathers they love, but the money will help make it just a little easier.

If you are touched as I have been, you can send a donation as well. Edd Henndee, one of the talk radio hosts in Houston, is collecting the donations and delivering them to the families. He asks that people make out two separate checks, one to Monica Ramos, one to Patty Compean, and mail them to:

Edd Henndee
Taste of Texas
10505 Katy Freeway
Houston, Texas 77024

This last weekend, I came down with some kind of weird sickness. I woke up Saturday morning, showered, got dressed, and was about to eat a bowl of cereal when I suddenly felt very fatigued. I ate my cereal and then layed down and fell asleep. A couple hours later, I woke up and had a salad Christine made for me. The salad wasn’t very appetizing (it should have been) and I was again very tired, so I went back to sleep. I slept most of the rest of the day, only getting up for short amounts of time and then resuming my slumber.

Sunday morning, I woke up, showered, and went back to bed. I slept until about 2 in the afternoon. When I got up then, I finally felt I had some energy and I’ve been up ever since (blogging like mad, by the looks of it.)

My two daughters have had these one-day stomach “flu” things this last week, but my sickness didn’t seem to be gastrointenstinal. It just seemed to be more... just tired. I had a headache that seemed to be worse when I moved around, but no fever and no distinct pain anywhere else in my body. Very odd.

Hopefully it’s past and I can resume normal life.

I've been wanting to read Freakonomics for many months and I think I've picked it up at a bookstore or grocery store at least a half dozen times without purchasing it. Finally, a week or so ago, I got it.

I guess I'll add yet-another voice to the choir that resounds there is not a unifying theme to this book. But, that's only a minor complaint.

Freakonomics is written by award-winning economist Steven Levitt and award-winning author Stephen J. Dubner. Without really knowing these two guys very well, I got the impression the end result (the book) is a combination of Levitt's geeky love of statistics and causal relationships and Dubner's pop-culture awareness. Either way, it's pretty good writing.

The book examines a number of surprising statistical relationships in unusual fields of study. For example, the first chapter asks, "What do schoolteachers and sumo-wrestlers have in common?" Yes. What? I've been wondering that since I was 10... not.

Each chapter asks an unusual question and then proceeds to break down the evidence until it arrives at the answer- and it's usually not one you expect.

Most people, when they think of economics or statistics, they immediately grab a pillow and a cup of warm milk. This book, on the other hand, is not a sleep-inducer. While there are a small number of data tables given, the reader does not need to dive into the data to understand what the authors are presenting. In fact, in the one case where data was used more heavily, the authors broke the data down row by row to explain their position.

I found myself reading the chapter on children's names ("Would a Roshanda by any Other Name Smell as Sweet?") out loud to my family because its findings (and predictions) were just fascinating to everyone.

The treatments on crime ("Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?" and "Where Have All The Criminals Gone?") really do an excellent job of making swiss cheese of what we call "conventional wisdom." Whether the results Levitt got from his studies are completely true or not, I think these chapters could be required reading for all kids because it really inspired me to wonder how much of what believe is factually true?

My biggest complaint about this book is that it ended too quickly. The edition I bought is the "revised and expanded" edition, which means the authors have reorganized the main chapters and have added some additional materail at the end of the book which includes articles written for the New York Times in conjunction with the book and a smattering of blog postings. While the extra material was somewhat interesting, I still felt the book was just too dang short!

Stephen Dubner's website states that he is working on another Freakonomics book with Levitt. I hope the next one is bigger because I think they've only touched the tip of the iceberg here.

In the extra material, the authors write a bit about "peak oil" and some of the problems with the theory from an economist's perspective. I hope they give this subject much more attention in their next book considering the price of oil was only about $60/barrel when they wrote about it and has since peaked at nearly $150/barrel since then.

I purchased a copy of "John Adams" by David McCullough at a local grocery store a couple months ago and finally finished it this last week. The book was first released in 2001 but, since then, the HBO television network has produced an award-winning mini-series based on the book and a repackaged reissue of the book was released..

I was very intrigued by John Adams after reading about him in the Joseph Ellis history narrative "Founding Brothers." What intrigued me most was his steadfast relationship with his wife Abigail and his on-again, off-again friendship with Thomas Jefferson.

"John Adams" peels away another layer and reveals an incredible amount of detail about the man and his roles in the early years of our country.

What impressed me most in the book was how relatively "solid" Adams was in his beliefs and his philosophies. Around the time he was elected the second president of the United States, there was a great amount of fervor within those involved in politics them to rally around political parties. Adams' political philosophy probably made him more of a federalist than a republican, but he refused to affiliate with either of the predominant movements at that time. This made him both popular and unpopular with both parties, but gave him a tremendous amount of freedom as president to do what he felt was right. Reading about this demonstrated to me just how counterproductive a two-party system can be, especially for executive-branch candidates.

So much of Adams' political beliefs are needed today. He was a frugal, sensible man who didn't see politics and public service as a life of celebrity or extravagance. He never felt he was above anyone else as was demonstrated by his pitching in to help fight fires when they broke out while he was in office. It's amazing to me to imagine the president of the United States standing in a chain line passing buckets of water down so that a burning building could be extinguished. Today it would be called a "publicity event" or some such nonsense.

When I finished the last chapter of the book, which covered Adams' death and the services and recognition paid to him afterwards, I couldn't help but cry for a couple of minutes. After reading the book, which contains hundreds of excerpts of letters and speeches from Adams, I felt I had made some progress toward knowing the man. While I knew from the beginning he had died almost 200 years ago, reaching that part of the book and realizing everything he had done, said, and influenced in the 89 years of his life hit me like a pile of bricks. We owe a large debt of gratitude to this man.

In related news, the HBO miniseries (which I have not seen) is coming out on DVD this Tuesday, June 10, 2008. You can get it from Amazon.com.

Get ready to be sick, twisted and freakay! Glenn Beck is coming to a "buttload" of movie theaters around the country on July 17 when his Dallas, TX live comedy stage show performance will be simulcast in HD nationwide to participating theaters.

Take it from someone who's seen Mr. Beck on stage a few times before, met him in-person, listens to radio show daily, and can't stop yakking about how Right he is... you won't want to miss this. Take your family, but make sure you invite someone who wouldn't normally go. You'll enjoy watching them pick their lower jaw up off the floor and wish they had worn Depends undergarments.

Tickets for this amazingly sick and twisted event go on sale a week from the day I'm writing this: Friday, 20 June 2008.

For more information, go here: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/11224/.

Wow!

About a month ago, my hero Glenn Beck had actor, writer, artist, etc. William Shatner on his television program for an hour-long interview. I missed it and didn't record it so I was very pleased to find out it was re-run this last Friday and got snagged on my DVR.

Wow!

That interview was just amazing and, surprisingly, contained almost no Star Trek content whatsoever. There were some clips from Star Trek shown when they were talking about Shatner's reputation for "overacting" but that's about it.

What did they talk about for an hour if not Star Trek? Some politics, some philosophy, some Shatner history, and alcoholism (Shatner's third wife suffered from alcoholism and it ended up claiming her life.)

Maybe I enjoyed it so much because it was just an almost-informal hour of discussion between two of my favorite people.

It looks like some dude on YouTube has done the honors of capturing the entire hour in six parts. At least he a real job of capturing the video and didn't just smack a Flip video camera in front of the TV like I've seen some people do!

Here are the obligatory links:

• Glenn Beck & William Shatner - Part 1
• Glenn Beck & William Shatner - Part 2
• Glenn Beck & William Shatner - Part 3
• Glenn Beck & William Shatner - Part 4
• Glenn Beck & William Shatner - Part 5
• Glenn Beck & William Shatner - Part 6

Listen to any kind of syndicated talk radio program and you'll usually hear about some companion website the program has. Usually, there are a handful of free things you can get on a program's website, but many of these sites have a pay-to-play members' area where the really good content is. This includes MP3 downloads of the shows, access to live audio and/or video streams, special behind-the-scenes content, forums, desktop backgrounds, etc.

The MP3 downloads are very convenient for people who don't have the luxury of sitting in front of a radio (or driving a car) for a solid three hours while a radio program is broadcast (with advertisements). It's also a boon for people who find radio advertisements annoying.

The only problem with the MP3 downloads is that theme music and produced portions of the program can not, by law, be included in the MP3 file because otherwise the MP3 would be a copyright violation.

Live streams, on the other hand, are not subject to the above described restriction because they're like a broadcast in nature. They're not a time-shift of the original program. So, if you listen to the live stream or even listen to a pre-recorded program as a stream, music and produced segments may be included.

I listen to the Glenn Beck radio program quite often. I used to download the MP3 files to listen to in the car, but it got annoying everytime Glenn and his producers would put together a segment like "Sportscasters at the 2031 animal-human hybrid baseball games", or "The History Of the Democratic Superdelegates" and I would hear Glenn say, "Listen to this... [pause] Oh man! That was great! Wasn't that great, Stu? Oh yeah! Alright! Dan? Wasn't that just the best? Yeah. Oh yeah."

I decided I needed to figure out how to save a stream.

I knew it was possible. Lots of software applications exist for any operating systems that will convert audio from a live stream into a static WAV file or similar. The open source program mplayer is one such example.

Breaking it down

First of all, I needed to figure out how the stream content made its way to my computer.

After I've logged into the Glenn Beck website as an Insider, I can click a link to listen to a stream of a particular hour of the program (or the whole program) in Windows Media format or RealAudio format. I figured I'd have better luck extracting the audio from the Windows Media format, so I went that route. Instead of just clicking the link and letting my web browser find some program that could handle the content, I saved the content to a file and then looked at the file.

The file it saved was a fairly straightforward XML file that looked something like this:

<ASX VERSION="3.0">
  <TITLE>Glenn Beck</TITLE>
  <AUTHOR>Premiere Radio Networks</AUTHOR>
  <COPYRIGHT>Copyright 2008</COPYRIGHT>

 <ENTRY>

    <TITLE>Glenn Beck 1</TITLE>

    <AUTHOR>Premiere Radio Networks</AUTHOR>

    <COPYRIGHT>Copyright 2008</COPYRIGHT>
 

    <REF HREF="mms://a0011.v67134.c6713.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/0011/6713/v08060322/glennbeck.download.akamai.com/6713/_!/shows/2008/06/03/GLENNBECKWIN20080603.WMA?auth=blahblahblahblahblah" />

    <REF HREF="http://a0011.v67134.c6713.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/0011/6713/v08060322/glennbeck.download.akamai.com/6713/_!/shows/2008/06/03/GLENNBECKWIN20080603.WMA?auth=blahblahblahblahblahblah
  </ENTRY>

  <ENTRY>

    <TITLE>Glenn Beck 2</TITLE>

    <AUTHOR>Premiere Radio Networks</AUTHOR>

    <COPYRIGHT>Copyright 2008</COPYRIGHT>

    

    <REF HREF="mms://a0011.v67134.c6713.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/0011/6713/v08060322/glennbeck.download.akamai.com/6713/_!/shows/2008/06/03/GLENNBECKWIN20080603_CLIP01.WMA?auth=blahblahblahblahblahblah" />

    <REF HREF="http://a0011.v67134.c6713.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/0011/6713/v08060322/glennbeck.download.akamai.com/6713/_!/shows/2008/06/03/GLENNBECKWIN20080603_CLIP01.WMA?auth=blahblahblahblahandblah" />

  </ENTRY>

...and so on.

This XML defines the MMS URLs for each segment of the show. There are several segments each hour. These individual MMS URLs are what I needed to feed to the application that was going to convert the audio stream to a file. In my case, I decided to use mplayer because it's just so good at everything it does!

The command line for doing the stream-to-file conversion looks like this:

mplayer -vc null -vo null -ao pcm:fast:file=dumpfile.wav \
    'mms://a0011.v67134.c6713.g.vm.akamaistream.net/blahblahblah...'

The real magic in the above command is where I use -ao pcm to tell mplayer to use the PCM file writer audio output driver (instead of sending the audio to my speakers).

This gives me a WAV file which I'll want to convert to an MP3 or Ogg-Vorbis file.

To convert a WAV file generated by the mplayer command above to an MP3 file, I use the open source lame tool:

lame -mf -q2 dumpfile.wav GlennBeck.mp3

Or, convert it to Ogg-Vorbis (the completely open and better-sounding-than-MP3 lossy audio codec):

oggenc -q2 --downmix -o GlennBeck.ogg dumpfile.wav

I've now covered the basic mechanical components of converting an audio stream into an MP3 or Ogg-Vorbis file. Next I automate it all.

Automation

Because I'm a long-time Perl junkie, I investigated how I could use a Perl script to act as the glue between the components and get the whole process of capturing a stream and converting it to MP3 or Ogg-Vorbis.

In the above walk-through, I manually logged into the Glenn Beck website with my web browser. To really completely automate this puppy, I wanted the script to log in for me. It didn't take me very long to figure out the Perl CPAN module WWW::Mechanize was what I needed to use.

WWW::Mechanize does several handy things for the programmer. It loads and parses web pages and can follow links, populate forms, and other basic kinds of interaction. It keeps track of its own cookies and session data too.

To get into the Insider area of the Glenn Beck website, members must enter their username and password on the Insider login page.

Looking at the HTML source for this page, I learned the form was named "aform", the username field was named "iUName", and the password field was named "iPassword".

I now had all the information I needed for WWW::Mechanize to log in:

my $agent = WWW::Mechanize->new(
    cookie_jar  => {},
);
   
my $resp = $agent->get('http://www.glennbeck.com/content/insider');
   
if($resp->is_success) {
    $resp = $agent->submit_form(
        form_name   =>  'aform',
        fields      =>  {   'iUName'    =>  'myusername',
                                'iPassword' =>  'shhhhhhhh!', },
        button      =>  'submit');

Walking through the code above: First, I create the WWW::Mechanize object with an in-memory cookie jar (cookie_jar => {}). Next, I use the object to get() the log-in page. If everything works well so far, I tell the object to find the form named "aform", fill in the username and password fields, and submit the form.

One thing I realized as I was debugging my script was that after I logged in on the Insider page, I was immediately redirected to another page. In order for my script to work, it needed to follow the redirect. This was an easy fix:

my $agent = WWW::Mechanize->new(
    cookie_jar  => {},
    redirect_ok => 1,
);

The page I got redirected to has the links on it for the streaming audio, so I'm exactly where I want to be if I want to capture and convert the latest and greatest Glenn Beck Program audio stream.

WWW::Mechanize can find links within the page with a variety of methods. One of these leverages Perl's excellent support for regular expressions. You can also search for links by the order in which they appear. The link I'm looking for looks like this:

<a href="http://www.premiereinteractive.com/cgi-bin/members.cgi?stream=shows/GLENNBECKWIN20080604&site=glennbeck&type=win_show"><img src="http://media.glennbeck.com/images/common/header_media5off.jpg" name="icon5" width="26" height="34" border="0" id="icon5" onMouseOver="MM_swapImage('icon5','','http://media.glennbeck.com/images/common/header_media5on.jpg',1)" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore()" /></a>

So, my script has the following:

$link = $agent->find_link( url_regex => qr/${datestr}.*win_show$/);
$resp = $agent->get($link);

This assumes I have a scalar variable $datestr that contains a formatted date for the show I want to capture.

Originally, I was going to use one of Perl's several XML-parsing modules to make sense of the XML in the stream link, but in the end all I needed was a regular expression to extract the mms: URLs.

my $xml = $resp->decoded_content;
my (@urls) = $xml =~ m/HREF="(mms:[^"]+)"/msg;

This gives me a list of URLs stored in @urls. Now I just need to feed them to mplayer:

$i = 1;
foreach my $u (@urls) {
    my $seq = sprintf("%02d", $i);
    my @cmd = ( 'mplayer', 
            '-vc', 'null', 
            '-vo', 'null',
            '-ao', "pcm:fast:file=${datestr}-${seq}.wav", 
            $u);
    system(@cmd);
    if ($? == -1) {
        print "failed to execute: $!\n";
    }
    elsif ($? & 127) {
        printf "child died with signal %d, %s coredump\n",
        ($? & 127),  ($? & 128) ? 'with' : 'without';
    }
    else {
        printf "child exited with value %d\n", $? >> 8;
    }

    $i++;
}

This little ditty creates an output file for each of the segment streams. These are named something like 20080604-05.wav.

When the loop is finished, I have several WAV files sitting on the disk. Now I need to somehow sew them all together into one big WAV file so I can convert it to an MP3 or Ogg-Vorbis file. For this, I turn to sox. I decided to have the Perl script generate a shell script to run all the sox and lame commands needed.

open FH, ">/tmp/${datestr}.sh";
foreach my $j (1..($i-1)) {
    my $seq = sprintf("%02d", $j);
    print FH 'sox ', "${datestr}-${seq}.wav", " -t raw - | cat >> /tmp/${datestr}.raw", "\n";
}
print FH 'sox -w -s -c 1 -r 22050 ', "/tmp/${datestr}.raw ${datestr}.wav\n";
print FH "lame -mf -q2 ${datestr}.wav ${datestr}.mp3 ";
print FH "--tt \"Glenn Beck Show - $datestr\" ";
print FH "--ta \"Glenn Beck\" --add-id3v2\n";
close FH;

Then, I run the shell script:

system('sh', "/tmp/${datestr}.sh");

Finally, I do a little cleanup:

unlink "/tmp/${datestr}.sh", "/tmp/${datestr}.raw", map({"${datestr}-$_.wav"} (1..($i-1)));

And, I'm done. There are many other ways I could have gone about doing this, but I found a way that worked and ran with it. I'd love to hear from people who have done something similar and how they did it.

I've come down with a cold this last week. I took Thursday off work to try to rest and get better, but I don't think it really helped. I still feel like I've got a pool cue ball lodged at the top of my throat and it's not a very pleasant feeling.

Yesterday, this somewhat painful and uncomfortable sensation in my throat begat the beginnings of a scratchy cough and I knew (actually, my wife knew) once I tried to lay down in bed and go to sleep, that scratchy cough would become a pesky inhibitor to sleep.

Sure enough, when I tried to lay down and go to sleep last night, the itchy throat kicked in and I was overcome with a compelling need to cough.

Knowing I had to do something about this in order to sleep, I threw some clothes on and drove over to the neighborhood Smith's grocery store in search for some sugar free (because I'm diabetic) cough drops. I quickly found a couple flavors and headed in the direction of the self-checkout station. On my way, I passed their selection of books for sale and I decided to see what they had. I was pleasantly surprised to see they had Glenn Beck's book in stock. It's only been in stock one other time before that I can remember looking. After looking through the hardcover books, I decided to do a quick pass through the paperbacks to see if there was anything interesting. That's when I found "The Blue Zone" by Andrew Gross. I had heard Gross talking about his new book "A Dark Tide" on the radio and thought I might like this book.

That was between 1:30 and 2:00 in the morning.

I decided to let the cough drops work their magic for a little while before I attempted to sleep again, so I started reading "The Blue Zone." I ended up reading about 150 pages of the book before climbing back in bed (fell to sleep without any problems at all). Then, I read some more this morning, and then finished it tonight- about 22 hours after purchasing it.

I think it goes without saying that it's an easy read.

The story is also an easy one to get into. Kate Raab is the central character in the story and is a graduate student doing some kind of research in genetic biology in the New York City area. Her father is a respected and well known trader of gold and other jewelry commodities.

The story begins with Kate's father being arrested for being involved in a money laundering scheme that was connected to Colombian drug cartels, a charge he firmly denied any knowledge of.

As the government explains the evidence they have against him, they also explain they can work a deal wherein he and his family get witness protection in exchange for his testimony against other people higher up in this scheme. After much deliberation, he decides to go ahead and take the deal. While it seemed he really didn't know what his clients were actually doing with the gold he was selling to them, he knew enough about the transactions and the people involved for the government to build a strong case.

Kate is 23 years-old, about to get married, and working on groundbreaking research in her field. When offered the opportunity to flee into the witness protection program, she declines despite knowing it will be very difficult for her to maintain communication with her family once they go into the program.

Several months later, government authorities go to Kate with news that her father has disappeared and they believe he may be involved in a murder and that her life may be in danger. From here, it seems Kate's whole world gets turned upside down as she tries to figure out why her father was charged in the first place, why he's gone into "the blue zone" (a phrase used for someone in witness protection who has gone missing), and who these people are that he was allegedly involved with and testifying against.

Gross's writing style seems very contemporary and somewhat formulaic. While he does a good job of building suspense and mystery, I can't say he did it completely convincingly. There were a couple times, albeit rare, when I saw something coming that was intended to draw a big gasp of shock from the reader.

In the story, Kate is an insulin-dependent diabetic and was diagnosed just a few years prior to the events in the book. That's interesting to me because I am also a type-1 diabetic and have only been for seven years or so. Gross's handling of the diabetes was a little weak. I think he could have done his research better on the symptoms of high blood sugar and low blood sugar because I didn't buy everything he said about Kate's condition throughout the story.

Twice in the story, a character receives a surprise call on their cell phone. In each case, the character is shocked to hear the voice on the other end of the call because they assumed the call was from someone else. This bothered me because it's a cell phone! Come on! Every cell phone has Caller ID and if it wasn't whoever they thought it was, they would at least see that the number was different or that the Caller ID information was being blocked. I mean, who answers their cell phone blindly anymore and says, "Hey, honey"?!

That being said, this guy is a good storyteller. I'll probably get his next book when it goes to paperback because the premise is interesting.

If you like suspenseful thrillers where the protagonist is thrown into a situation they don't understand and they have to work against all odds to find their way out, you'll probably enjoy The Blue Zone.

Tonight, I finished reading The Host by Stephenie Meyer, the bestselling author of the Twilight saga of young adult vampire novels. The Host is Meyer's first foray into "adult" fiction and I hope this is just a sign of many things to come. I really enjoyed this book a lot.

Why is The Host categorized as "adult" fiction? What makes it different than the other Meyer books? Well, the themes are more mature, that's for sure. The romance is amped up a couple notches, but I think any 16 year-old would be fine reading it.

A large portion of the story takes place in a complex of underground caves which I thought was a bit of a cop-out from a writing standpoint. Putting the characters into such a limited set of scenery conveniently eliminated a lot of potentially complex variables in the story. Meyer makes an effort to make up for it, though, by defining her characters with abundant detail. The dialogue between the characters was so natural to me, I often found myself laughing out loud as I read because it was so amazing to me how believable the characters were.

Could The Host turn into another series of novels for Meyer? I wouldn't complain, but I kind of hope she doesn't limit herself to it.

The basic premise of the book is that Earth has been invaded by an alien race that embeds itself into the human body as a parasite. The humans that once controlled those bodies are seemingly shut off. The story begins as a young woman named Melanie -- an "uninfected"human rebel who has been hiding from the aliens -- is captured and is implanted with a "soul" (one of the parasite aliens) named Wanderer.

Melanie isn't about to just fade away like humans are supposed to. She makes life for Wanderer challenging and... interesting, but it's Melanie's memories that form the basis for changes in Wanderer's outlook on humanity, love, and life.

I thoroughly enjoyed the way Meyer plays the alien Wanderer as a way of looking through a fresh lens at humans in various circumstances. There were multiple times, as I was reading, I was impressed by the genius of that.

It's available in hardcover wherever your favorite novels are sold.

Another book I read recently is "A Train To Potevka" written by Mike Ramsdell, a native Utahn.

Ramsdell spent many years working in Military Intelligence (MI) and with his mastery of the German and Russian languages, was involved in missions behind the Iron Curtain in the 1980s.

This book, Ramsdell's first, is classified as fiction, but it's clear from reading that it is, at a minimum, based on real events. The stories take place shortly before the collapse of the Communist government in the former Soviet Union. Ramsdell was involved in a mission to capture a member of the Russian mafia for being involved in fraudulent activities surrounding the construction of the U.S. embassy in Moscow.

Just as the mission was getting close to finishing, the team's security is compromised. Ramsdell sends his two other operatives home while he "cleans up" and prepares to leave as well. He is intercepted by a mafia hit man and must find a way to escape and get out of the city to a safehouse in the town of Potevka.

This is a great book, especially for a first-time author. It ends up being both a love story and a spiritual story. For readers who are LDS, they will be especially touched by the spiritual side of the story. All readers will likely be captivated by the nitty-gritty details of Ramsdell's writing as he describes degrading conditions in the Siberian provinces of the former Soviet Union near the fall of Communism.

You can purchase this book from Amazon.com.

I've been reading the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. The title of the book is guaranteed to set people off, one way or another and for this reason, Goldberg seems to spend a extraordinary amount of effort defending his premises and explaining that he's not saying that today's liberals are anti-semetic, genocidal maniacs. What he does say, and says very well, is that history's most common tales of fascism, such as Adolf Hilter and Benito Mussolini, were largely influenced by progressive thought--the same progressive thought that rules the Democratic party and liberal politics today.

In a July 2007 debate, Hillary Clinton responded to the question of whether she would refer to herself as a "liberal."

"You know, ['liberal'] is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

"I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

"I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

"So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics."

At the time of this debate, I was reading The Forgotten Man by Amnity Schlaes which provides a new look at the political forces at play before and during the 1930s when the United States was enduring The Great Depression. What Schlaes reveals--and what many people don't know--is that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies were formed with the help of a team of progressive advisors and cabinet members who had varying degrees of infatuation and admiration for Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini and the forms of government they were managing and/or advocating.

Schlaes offers that the policies of the Roosevelt administration were a significant input into why the Great Depression lasted for the entire decade of the 1930s while other industrialized nations around the world suffered an economic hit in 1929 and then recovered relatively quickly.

I mention this because, thanks in part to my friend Glenn Beck, I recently came across a number of platform statements and congressional records belonging to presidential candidate (and current frontrunner) Barack Obama that suggest he is ready to (blindly?) take us right into a repeat of the 1930s.

National work programs

The Roosevelt administration, in the interest of stimulating the economy and helping the large number of unemployed, created a number of government work plans including the Civilian Conservation Corps, a work program for young men, 17 years old or older. The CCC put these men to work in camps on various projects around the country such as clearing out dead wood in forests and building bridges, walkways, and roads, and other construction projects, usually in rural or undeveloped settings.

Last week, Barack Obama announced to Wisconsin auto industry workers that, as president, he would propose over $200 billion in programs to create new government jobs. The bulk of this spending would go to create a workforce of "green-collar workers" that would tackle environmental issues like finding new forms of enviro-friendly fuels. Other jobs would go to infrastructure projects such as highways and bridges.

While I agree that good hard work is good for the mind and soul and would benefit individuals who would otherwise be unemployed and potentially idle, I can't help but be concerned that Sen. Obama hasn't studied his history. Quite frankly, it doesn't seem like many on the left have studied their history because these types of programs are becoming quite a popular topic of discussion among liberals. If we know we're going into a period that may be like the 1930s, why would we do the same things that prolonged the suffering and the stagnation then?

The less-fortunate

Many Americans believe we have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate around the world. Liberals believe this should be a function of the federal government. Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer this be done by private organizations and charities. One of the reasons conservatives feel this way is because the charitable feeling is completely lost when your money is forcefully taken from you by the federal goverment in the form of taxes and fees, no matter how good the intentions are. Plus, there is the issue of how efficiently those funds will be handled.

Senator Obama, along with fellow senators Chuck Hagel and Maria Cantwell, have sponsored legislation known as the "Global Poverty Act" which passed the Senate Foreign Relations committee this last week. If passed, this legislation would require that the federal government provide a small percentage of the economic GDP as financial aid for countries where people live in poverty. The US would not send this money directly to the people or their governments. Instead, we would give that money to the United Nations to administer the funds.

Again, when will people learn?! Our government created a formal "War On Poverty" after World War II and spent plenty of money on programs to help the poor improve their station in life. Did anyone actually rise out of poverty? Not according to statistics. Because of this and because the government continued to rise the poverty level to include less and less poor households, those who qualified for assistance under these programs grew.

1964, Ronald Reagan gave a speech titled "A Time For Choosing". In it, he addresses the inefficiency of the government's welfare programs.

"We are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead."

He also talks about the overall ineffectiveness of cutting checks to those "in-need:"

"If government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? ... But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater."

Again, haven't we learned anything from our past mistakes? Why can't our political leaders learn what works and employ those techniques instead of playing the same old card again and again?

What works for poverty, unemployment, etc.? Not free handouts.

The LDS Church here in Utah has its own welfare programs which are available to anyone, regardless of church affiliation. These programs are not handouts. Instead. they are structured, compassionate programs that encourage the recipients to "give in" to receive. Meals, clothing, and other assistance are available to those in need and, in turn, the recipients are asked to give of their time and effort to help provide the same services to others. This is a perfect example of why private charitable organizations are much better equipped to deal with these kinds of problems than the bureaucratic nightmare of the federal government.

Obama's legislation states that it is all part of an international agreement to help combat poverty. This means that all participating countries will be taking a portion of their national revenue and giving it to the United Nations for distribution to poor areas. Two alarm bells go off when I ponder this: Global redistribution of wealth, a socialist policy tenet, and international taxation by the United Nations! When will the madness stop?

The United Nations is supposed to help keep the peace in sensitive areas of the world and it can't even do that well. Why would anyone think this organization would be effective and act responsibly in an effort to combat poverty? Oil for food, anyone? Do progressives, liberals, and socialists simply lack the ability to learn?!

Debt

The United States government, and by association, the citizens of the United States, are between $9 and $100 TRILLION dollars in debt. I fail to see the sense of spending more than what is required to maintain bare essential services until this debt is eradicated. Social programs, earmarks, museums, assistance programs... They should all be stopped or shrunk so that some of the government's revenue can be applied toward the outstanding debt.

History tells us Thomas Jefferson had much to say about debt, both personal and national. He stated it was vital that the country not take on debt and if it did, that it should be no more debt than could be paid for in one generation.

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

As a country, we have ignored Jefferson's advice since the beginning of the 20th century and now we are witnessing the effects of years of irresponsible borrowing in our economic outlook.

And speaking of irresponsible borrowing, Barack Obama has proposed a $10 billion federal fund to help "innocent victims" caught in the subprime loan mess. Are there really innocent victims? I don't think so. When you borrow money to purchase a house, you have plenty of opportunity to learn what you're getting into, what your obligations are, etc. The lending institutions are certainly not innocent either because they have time-tested methods for determining risk when lending money. What Obama is suggesting is essentially saddling us with more national debt because of a few people's irresponsible behavior.

Fiscal discipline and revenue

Barack Obama's website says a lot about a need for fiscal discipline and responsibility. I'm glad his website says these thing, but if he really believes in these things, how are these billions upon billions of federal programs going to be funded? There will have to be greater revenue to the federal government and/or less spending on programs that are already there. Obama's honest about this, if not direct about it. If you peruse his website, you'll learn he wants to cut spending on various programs and he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Well, only for the rich, not for the poor or middle class taxpayers.

While repealing tax cuts for the rich is a popular thing to do (because there are a lot more people who aren't rich than are), it is, by definition, not fair. I would really like someone to explain to me why it makes sense that we pay a different percentage of our assets in taxes based on the amount of assets we have. To be fair, equal, and all that, shouldn't we each pay the same percentage?

What are the economic repercussions of saddling the "rich" with more taxes? The rich are more likely to spend more than those who are less wealthy, so this would cut into their spending power. The rich are more likely to employ others than those who are less wealthy, so this cuts into their hiring power. Hello?! Tax hikes on the rich is a direct attack on important driving forces of the economy: consumer spending and employment!

If you ran a business and the walls figuratively came crashing down around you like they have in the United States economy the last few months, what would you do?

You could just call it quits and walk away.

You could make calls into every person you know and beg them for help and support.

There are many directions you could go, but there is one thing I can't imagine anyone would do: try to go on living like nothing has happened.

The problems in our financial markets and talk within the ranks of legislative and executive leadership of propping up failed institutions have brought to light another very glaring miscalculation: The U.S. government is already in a terrible amount of debt. These are all signs of the seriousness of the situation we are in. These signs suggest a calculated, careful, well thought-out response.

More importantly, these signs demand that we, as a people, forget political loyalties, forget the frivolity of our lifestyles, forget luxury and conveniences, and forget about the thoughts of others.

We must concentrate on one thing: Getting through this together in one piece. That means making serious sacrifices and planning for the future.

Why, during all that is going on, do I see that the U.S. Mint has announced a forthcoming set of commemorative pennies to celebrate Abraham Lincoln's 200^th birthday?

It's not much in the grand scheme of things, but this is a perfect example of how government is just going on doing what it has always done when it should be doing much, much less.

The U.S. Mint operations should probably scale back to one standard set of coin and paper currency. The U.S. Postal Service could probably minimize postal options. The U.S. Department of Transportation could make a quick decision of which construction projects currently underway can be suspended immediately, which projects can be brought to a point at which they can be suspended, and how costs can be minimized on other projects.

Everything our government does needs to be assessed and evaluated for fat that can be trimmed so that only essential services are provided. programs will need to be scrapped, shut down, or scaled back. To help those in need who have traditionally relied on government services or assistance, groups outside the government will need to step forward and help.

The failed businesses have failed. Propping them up will cost more money. Figuring out why they failed will cost more money. Reorganizing them, placing them in a conservatorship will all cost more money. Money... money we don't have and can't afford to keep borrowing.

Can we set an example, as a country, for what should be done?

I hope so.

While the Democrat-led congress vacations, tensions between the U.S. and Russia have spiked as Russia has engaged in military operations inside the neighboring country Georgia. Many people I talk to have no idea why Russia has taken this action, what it means to the United States, or what it means, period.

Georgia is a small country just south of the western region of Russia. It borders the Black Sea on the west and Ajerbaijan to the east. Turkey and Armenia lie to its south.

As an aside, my paternal grandmother and her family left Armenia and came to the United States of America during the early 1900s to escape the invasion and (alleged) genocide by the Turks.

This region is no stranger to conflict. It would seen the unification of the USSR during the 20th century was one of the most peaceful times for the region. However, the people lacked freedom.

Since the fall of the old Soviet government, Georgia was established as a sovereign nation independent of Russia. At first, the new government was rife with corruption, but that began to change when Mikheil Saakashvili took office as president in early 2004. Saakashvili studied law in the United States in the 1990s and has strived to establish a very US-like domestic policy. Since becoming president, Georgia has risen to number 18 in term of ease of doing business, according to the World Bank. Georgia has also been named the top economic reformer country in the world.

Georgia's domestic policies are pretty revolutionary by US standards. Saakashvili has implemented a low 12-percent flat tax and frequently talks about the need for government to "get out of the way" of business so they can operate and grow unfettered by regulation.

Relations between Russia and Georgia have been tense over the years. Georgia's close ties with the United States, it's petition to be admitted as a member nation in NATO, and it's free market economy have not sat well with Russian officials. Georgia also cooperated with Turkey and Azerbaijan to build and operate an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea that would compete directly with Russian oil pipelines.

Finally, there's the issue of the South Ossetia province. This is a province in north-central Georgia that borders Russia. The Ossetians have expressed interest in becoming an independent breakaway state. Saakashvili has instead granted South Ossetia full autonomy as a state under the Georgian federal government.

Reportedly, a majority of South Ossetians hold Russian passports and Russia has claimed one reason for their military movement into Georgia was to protect their citizens. What isn't widely reported is that Russia offered free passports to the people of South Ossetia.

While the situation in South Ossetia is difficult to understand, what is clear is that Russia's move into Georgia was far more than a "reaction" to Georgia's actions. Not only that, but Russian military has gone much further into Georgia than just the contested lands of South Ossetia.

What is clear is that Russia is no longer the timid, floundering democracy it was during the 1990s. Under Vladamir Putin, Russia has amassed large amounts of wealth and power through the oil exploration and production. Russia is again poised to be a formidable military world power and its alliances with China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and Libya paint a pretty clear picture of which side they're on relative to the United States.

Nicolas Sarkozy of France had his own Neville Chamberlain moment last week as he negotiated a cease-fire with Russia, but the fighting continued and Russian military incursion further into Georgia continued after Sarkozy returned to France with a false sense of accomplishment.

The United States has formally admonished Russia for its role in the South Ossetian hostilities and has insisted Russian military action must stop at once and Russian troops should leave Georgia. Secretary Of State Condoleeze Rice personally went to the Georgian capitol of Tbilisi late this last week to help broker a peace plan and was successful in getting parties to sign a peace plan.

I think there are many things we can learn from what has happened in Georgia this last week or so.

Oil is power. While one of the major issues in the 2008 US election season is oil and energy, Democrats in congress are very reluctant to increase domestic oil exploration and/or production. Presidential candidate Barack Obama insists alternatives to fossil fuels are the only energy sources we should be investing in. Meanwhile, other countries such as Russia, Venezuela, and China are growing their oil production at record pace. As a result, these countries are collecting large amounts of wealth and power while we here in the US watch the value of our currency languish.

One of the concerns on the left of the oil issue is that oil drilling, production, refinement, and consumption impact the environment negatively. While there is little doubt that is true, I find it hard to believe Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, and others who would use their increased power against the United States are currently going about their petroleum business with an eye on environmental impact. If there is any country on the planet that can set the standard for clean, responsible, and environmentally sensitive exploration, production, and use of fossil fuels, it is the United States of America. But, instead, we seem poised on tying our own hands and watching our economy crumble.

The United States is beginning to look like it's "all talk." Georgia has committed thousands of troops to fight alongside the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its desire to be a NATO member country represents a great deal of where its alliances lie. If the NATO member nation is attacked, it is expected that other member nations of NATO would respond in kind to its aid and defense. Aside from formally issuing a few words critical of Russia, sending some humanitarian aid, and putting Secretary Rice on the ground in Tbilisi, we're looking pretty impotent next to Russia's tanks, missiles, and planes.

Russia is back. You'd better believe it. Saakashvili said recently in an interview he believed the bombs Russia was dropping on Georgia were meant for us. "This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush," Saakashvili said were (figuratively) inscribed on the bombs dropped on his country.

Some critics of this theory say Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia first and Russia just responded to protect its citizens. The shear size of their "response" invalidates this theory. Something that big had to have been planned weeks in advance.

What do you think?

Today, John McCain announced his choice of running mate in the presidential race to be Sarah Palin, current governor of Alaska.

In my opinion, this is the smartest thing McCain could have done, short of bringing Mitt Romney or Ron Paul on board.

Good job John McCain. This brings me significantly closer to actually supporting the guy.

Can you believe the hypocrisy, lies, and just all-out lack of respect the media, blogosphere, and the far-left are demonstrating with regard to Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

Here's an example of a blatant disregard of the facts.

On his television show last night, Glenn Beck had a short segment where he debunks some of the flat-out ridiculous crap Barack Obama has said about Palin. Beck laid it all out and told it like it is. Here's part of the transcript.

As a constitutional conservative, I am generally disappointed with the gains the progressive Democrats have made in the U.S. Senate and House Of Representatives. I'm also disappointed that we are now faced with four years of leadership by Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Many of my online colleagues -- members of the "young geek" crowd -- were vocal advocates for Obama during the presidential campaign. I admire their conviction, dedication and involvement in a political campaign. Normally, I don't think they would pay that much attention to a presidential race, but because of the state the country is in and because Mr. Obama has proved to be attractive to young voters, there is an unusually strong sentiment for him in these young, technologically-aware voters.

The Obama campaign seemed to have run a much better Internet campaign than anyone ever before. Many lessons can be learned from this by all who hope or plan to participate in a political campaign in the future.

I'm not entirely upset republicans lost races. As a good friend of mine remarked, "The GOP needs to be benched for four years," to get their bearings.

Many political commentators have observed today's republicans are not the same as republicans from 20-30 years ago. My observation is republicans are generally a lot further left of conservative than they used to be. I suppose the same could be said about the democrats: They are also a lot further left than they used to be. Without a significant pull to th right, we are looking at a significant policy shift toward socialism.

Because of this, the Republican Party either needs to return to its conservative roots or we will need to create a new major conservative party to keep conservative interests represented.

The key to enacting a shift back toward the right, I believe, is education and study. For example, I've been involved with the Free Capitalist Project for the last several weeks and have found it to be an excellent step in the right direction.

There seems to be many organizations with similar values and goals. The trick will be getting many of these organizations to cooperate toward a common goal.

The first step, I believe, is helping more people to understand (or to become reaquainted) with some of the basics of the founding of our country.

Life, Liberty, Healthcare, Education, Bailouts, Income Protection, and the Pursuit of Happiness?!

Quoting from "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat:

Once you understand the rightful place for the government, or "the law," you will begin to see why our government is... well, askew.

Someone told me recently they felt it was the government's proper role to "improve our lives." That fallacy is a popular one, but it is a fallacy nonetheless. It is, however, the government's rightful place to protect your ability to improve your own life. That distinction is significant!

These fundamental principles were employed by those that penned their names on our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and participated in the writing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787.

I implore all those who read these words I've written to stop and ponder them. Read "The Law" yourself -- it's available for free from several sites in HTML or PDF formats and does an excellent job of explaining these things in a way that's easy to understand and digest.

This country -- the product of reason -- could not survive on the morality of sacrifice. It was not built by men who sought self-immolation or by men who sought handouts... It could not live by the mystic doctrine that damned this earth as evil and those who succeeded on earth as depraved. From its start, this country was a threat to the ancient rule of mystics. In the brilliant rocket-explosion of its youth, this country displayed to an incredulous world what greatness was possible to man, what happiness was possible on earth. It was one or the other: America or mystics. The mystics knew it; you didn't. You let them infect you with the worship of need -- and this country became a giant in body with a mooching midget in place of its soul, while its living soul was driven underground to labor and feed you in silence, unnamed. unhonored, negated, its soul and hero: the industrialist...

-- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

I don't think I've ever mentioned anything about Tony Snow on the Fozzolog before. I can't say that I was a "fan" of his, not that I didn't like him or anything. Today, however, I learned he has ultimately succumbed to the cancer he has battled for years.

My first exposure to Tony Snow was when he would occasionally fill in for Rush Limbaugh on the Rush Limbaugh radio program in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This was at a time when I really enjoyed listening to Rush (before I switched to Glenn Beck for my primary talk-radio fix). It was always a disappointment when Rush had a fill-in host, but of the fill-in hosts, Tony Snow was one of my favorite if not the favorite. He knew how to keep momentum on the radio, something that even the most seasoned broadcasters struggle with. 

Before Snow accepted the invitation to join the Bush administration as Press Secretary, he was an anchor and host on the Fox News cable channel. He also had his own radio program which was available in Utah shortly before he joined the Bush administration.

Unlike most people in the middle of the political news arena, Snow always seemed to me like a genuinely good guy. I would cringe at the prospect of, say, being at a barbeque with the likes of Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman, or radio hosts Michael Medved or Michael Savage. If Tony Snow was going to be there, I'd be delighted to go and mingle. He always seemed like an easy-going, down to earth dude.

A couple nights ago, I posted a quick entry here about Barack Obama on domestic oil.

Levi Pearson, a friend and a fellow local geek, got right on my case about some issues he had with what I said and left some comments. He had some really good points and most people will miss out on these because now they're buried in the thread of comments attached to the original article.

Also, this weekend, Pete Ashdown, owner of Utah Internet service provider XMission and former candidate for US Senate, posted a status update on his Facebook site that the Salt Lake Tribune had published an opinion piece he wrote about Utah's national GOP delegation and their... seemingly hypocritical grandstanding on energy and domestic oil production issues.

As a result of the back-and-forth with Levi and Pete, and my own research and introspection, I decided it would be best to write another entry explaining what I've learned and what I've concluded.

I'll admit, looking over what I originally wrote in my previous entry, it was a fluff piece. I was ranting without any facts or figures to back me up. That's not to say I think I was wrong. In fact, I think I've found information to back me up.

Pete's opinion piece was a pretty level-headed argument that Utah's GOP representatives (and presumed congressman-elect) and senators are unfairly pointing fingers at democrats and generally just adding to the dysfunction that is our congress.

Rob Bishop

I completely agree with Pete that Sen. Hatch and Sen. Bennett have way too much non-action under their belt to answer for to be out touting their newly discovered position on energy policy. This is especially the case for Hatch who has plenty of seniority. They both need to be voted out of office as soon as possible, in my opinion.

Rep. Bishop, I actually like. I looked at his voting record both since the Democrats have gained majority control of congress and before and found, while he treads a little closer to the party line than I would like, he votes the way I would like on most issues.

Now, I was concerned that I saw he vote NO on a bill last year (HR 6), the Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation act. This sounds like the kind of bill I would want an elected official representing our state to vote for, but then I looked at the details. This was one of the "first 100 hours" bills that Pelosi pushed when the Democrats first took control and contains broad, sweeping legislation to enact price controls on oil companies, remove select subsidies and deductions given to oil and natural gas producers, and add taxes on oil imports and domestic production to fund investment in alternative fuels and alternative energy.

California representative Wally Herger had some remarks on this legislation that were spot-on:

"A truly balanced energy bill would begin with the serious problem of record gas prices and reducing America's dependence on foreign sources of energy and then proceed with creating incentives that would unleash the power of American inventiveness and creativity in order to develop the next generation of energy technology and supplies. H.R. 6 relies on an outdated and failed belief that Washington knows best. Over 1,000 pages of legislative text contains little in the way of broad-based incentives, but is chock-full of new regulations and a higher tax burden, which will do little, if anything, for consumers. A better approach would get Washington out of the way and allow market-oriented solutions to provide for an affordable, diverse, and secure energy supply for America."
-- 17 December 2007

Another representative, Don Young of Alaska made a more ideological remark about the proposed legislation.

"I am wearing this red shirt today; it's the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking."
-- 23 January 2007

Anyway, back to Pete's article! It's probably just a coincidence this opinion piece came out the Sunday after a group of House republicans took to the floor of the house after the House had adjourned, to protest Pelosi not allowing an up or down vote on a bill that would allow more domestic oil production. Rob Bishop was the only member of the Utah delegation to join this group and I applaud him for standing on the issue like he did.

Where was Chris Cannon? Who cares? There's a reason he got tossed in the primaries and his absence almost says it all.

Jason Chaffetz

Pete threw a barb at Jason Chaffetz for going on a trip to Alaska telling the press he believes all our energy woes are attributable to the democrats. I agree with Pete that such a comment is, well, stupid. I went and looked for a media report on Chaffetz's comments. Sure enough, it's a pretty glaring comment and shows Chaffetz is, in some regard, just like every other person who has ever run for office and made vague, unsubstantiated criticisms of the opposition party.

"There's no doubt that Democrats are the problem. We've done what they've suggested, and look at the results -- since (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi took over, gas prices have doubled,"
-- 18 July 2008

I know enough about the factors that have fed into the rising gas prices over the last five years to know that a Democrat majority in congress beginning January 2007 isn't to blame. However, I do think the factors that led to the Democrat Party wresting power from the Republicans is part of the problem.

That being said, Chaffetz was quoted in the same article saying something that reminded me why I'm glad I helped make him the GOP nominee for the congressional race:

"We have to explore every facet of development that's available -- wind, solar, hydro, nuclear -- we have to move forward on all fronts."

Pete's proposed solution... Re-run Carter?

Pete praised Jimmy Carter (which makes me a little worried about Pete) and his energy policy.

"It is more revealing to look further back to the much-maligned President Carter who, in 1979, during the first oil crunch, set goals for our country so we'd never see a second energy crisis. "Carter proposed that U.S. automakers attain a whopping 48-mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency by 1995. He demanded that we curtail imported oil by imposing fees. Finally, Carter proposed windfall taxes on oil companies to fund alternative energy and a goal of generating 20 percent of our power from solar by 2000. "

I think we now know solar power still isn't a viable source of "core" electric power. Otherwise, Pete would be running XMission on solar power, right? I've read some estimates that solar power might begin to be viable in as little as five years. I think it's fair to say President Carter's plan was a wee bit unrealistic.

And then there's Carter's "double-edged plan" to impose fees or tariffs on imported oil and then tax the heck out of domestic oil compnnies or penalize their profits.

I fail to see how this would have helped anything or how doing the same thing today would help anything. All this would do is hurt consumers more (with even higher prices at the pump) and possibly result in gasoline shortages.

Hurray for Jimmy Carter!

Oh, and while we're talking about windfall profits, consider that oil companies make about 8.5% profit. If that's going to be considered a windfall profit, what happens to companies in other industries like Publishing (34% average profit), Health Care Facilities (48% average profit), or Hotels (10.6% average profit)?!

Generally, I agree with Pete that we need to do something big, akin to the Apollo program or the Manhattan project, to get our country into a better energy situation. I also believe it will take years to accomplish the goal.

I believe the solution is for the government to get out of the way of business, within reason. Pete seems to think a massive government program is called for and he even insinuates that we may need a repeat of The Great Depression before the public agrees with him.

Maybe the ideal solution is something in between.

Levi and relief from gasoline prices

Levi criticized my claim that simple policy changes could lower gas prices to as low as $3.00/gallon or $2.50/gallon. That would represent a 33 to 42 percent drop in price. Yeah... Levi... I think you're right on this one. I don't know what I was smoking, but that's clearly quite a long shot.

That being said, I do believe that a combination of Summer driving season ending within the next month and, possibly, congressional policy changes on increased domestic production, could very well result in lower gas prices. Perhaps a more realistic estimate would be 10-15%. That would bring us down to the neighborhood of $3.65/gallon. You won't be hearing much complaining from me if that happens.

Levi, facts, media, and Glenn

One thing in Levi's comments really hit me hard:

"Most of my googling turned up articles reporting on opinion polls, which show that a majority of respondents believe that drilling for oil will reduce gas prices in the short-term. This, frankly, disgusts me. We're not lemmings, we should get facts and draw our own conclusions, not get our coverage of the issue solely based on some vague percentage of support in the polls. What a tremendous failure of the media!"

Levi's right. There's a symbiotic relationship between elected officials, public opinion, and media coverage of issues. The rise of a plethora of cable news sources, Internet news sources and more has resulted in news (and opinion) that is short on facts. In fact, it seems increasingly obvious that opinion makes the news as much as news does.

Levi has commented to me before that he thought a certain stance I had on an issue was indicative of "Glenn Beck thinking." I took that to mean he was inferring that I didn't really have a substantive opinion of my own on the issue, that I was just repeating what I had heard from talk radio.

Talk radio does get a bad rap for that -- that listeners are nothing more than lemmings or foot soliders lined up for marching orders.

I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh a lot. That was before I got hooked on Glenn Beck. Looking back, I think Rush is more of, dare I say, a shill for the Republican Party, than I was willing to admit. He's been very vocal about not liking John McCain this year and that would represent some independence from the party, but I think he's still quite beholden.

But Rush Limbaugh isn't the "blowhard" a lot of people like to make him out to be. If a caller phones into Rush's program and whines about this or that and says something like "Rush, I know we live in a democracy, but this is insane!" Mr. Limbaugh will stop everything and take five, ten minutes, however long it takes, to help this caller (and all the people listening) understand that we do not live in a democracy, we don't want to live in a democracy, and here's why: bam, bam, bam. He'll lay it all out and I have to respect the guy for using his forum to actually educate his listeners and not just indoctrinate them.

Anyone who has listened to (or watched) Glenn Beck for any significant length of time knows he's got a pretty cool team of researchers working for him on both his radio program and his TV show. They fact-check just about everything before it goes on the air. In addition, Glenn seems very sensitive about the typical talk-radio rumors that always go around. For example, lately it's that Barack Obama won't pledge allegiance to the flag, that he's not a Christian, etc. In fact, this last week, a guy called into Glenn's radio program to point out Obama's hypocricy in saying he was embarrassed that Americans don't know many foreign languages but that he delivered all his Europe speeches in English. Then, the caller thought it would be funny to add a little something. Read below and observe as Glenn deals with it.

CALLER: Well, you know, I'm not really sure about when he went to, oh, the Muslim countries. But I have a feeling he speaks their language, though.

GLENN: See, now wait a minute. I don't even know what that means. Why would you even go there?

CALLER: Well, because I'm just the evil conservative.

GLENN: Well, you know what? You know what? You give conservatives a bad name when you -- no, listen to me, Cliff.

CALLER: Okay.

GLENN: When you insinuate that Obama is a Muslim and he's not a Muslim, you give conservatives a bad name. You give people a bad name because that is the kind of argument where you lose immediately. You say something like that and nobody worth their salt listens to you anymore about what you have to say about Barack Obama. Don't say those things. There's no reason to say those things. You know what? You say something like that and then I stop looking to see if Obama ever, the elitist, ever did say, "You know what, you go over to other countries, I'm sick of these Americans" because I no longer believe you. I don't think you have any credibility at all.

--28 July 2008

To kind of get back on topic here, I admit a chunk of my opinion is shaped by what Glenn Beck says, but I'm willing to go with it because I know he (and his people) have done their work. Plus, Glenn encourages his listeners to learn for themselves and often gives them the sources where they can find the facts  themselves.

Facts to back me up

So, I went out looking for articles written by "experts" in energy policy and found a lot of what I was looking for at The Heritage Foundation.

• Supply, demand and gasoline prices by David Kreutzer, Ph.D.
• Oil speculators help consumers at the gas pump by David Kreutzer, Ph.D.
• Oil: Open up federal lands by Ben Lieberman
• No drilling? No excuses by Ben Lieberman
• More Energy Supplies, Not More Taxes and Regulations, Are What We Need by Ben Lieberman
• Lifting the Offshore Drilling Ban: A Positive Step in the Fight against High Energy Prices by Ben Lieberman

And here are a couple other articles I found.

• Death of Reason, Again? - Article on windfall profits by Bruce Bartlett
• Oil Company Profits and Tax Collections: Does the U.S. Need a New Windfall Profits Tax? by Jonathan Williams and Scott A. Hodge of The Tax Foundation

Whew. I'm tired.

Okay, it's time for a little political talk. Today, our friend and savior, Barack Obama was campaigning in Florida and revealed that he has flipped, justifiably so, on the issue of increasing domestic oil drilling.

I applaud the Obama campaign for starting to "get it" on the issue of energy. Most Americans, even those on the right, support the development of new alternative, forms of energy. But, in the meantime, there's a lot we can do to keep the price of petroleum-based fuel from continuing to climb.

Next, Obama delivered a precious disclaimer he's used before:

"It's also important to recognize if you start drilling now you won't see a drop of oil for ten years, which means its not going to have a significant impact on short-term prices. Every expert agrees on that."

(This quote from an article at http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/state/epaper/2008/08/01/0801obama1.html.)

This is fear mongering, plain and simple and it's a classic maneuver straight out of Al Gore's playbook. "All the experts agree!" Yeah, right. Show them to me!

If we do no drilling and merely "hope for change" via Obama's promise of new technology delivering us out of our energy slump, it will be at least ten years before things start to improve.

And that's not all. This ten-year delay makes no sense. Obama's claim may be based on the time it would take for America to increase refining capability. It's true that it takes 4-10 years (depending on how much red tape the local and federal government throw up in their path) for an oil company to build and begin operating a new oil refinery. But, for drilling and then pumping crude oil out of the ground, we're talking about a matter of weeks or months before product is available on the market, not years.

If domestic supplies are harnessed, we can lower our oil imports and supplant it with domestic oil supplies. It's a no-brainer that oil prices in the U.S. will fall or at least become less tied to the world market price levels.

Crude oil futures dropped about $20 right after President Bush lifted the presidential ban on offshore oil drilling. Oil production didn't change! The market just responded to the possibility of increased domestic production. The market will respond even moreas soon as roadblocks to increased domestic supply are removed.

We may never see $1.50/gallon gasoline for a long, long time, but we could see $3.00 or $2.50/gallon gasoline despite increased demand from India and China.

A couple weeks ago, Glenn Beck started doing a new bit on his radio program: "Battle Of The News Headlines" where he takes news headlines of the day about either Barack Obama or John McCain and pits them against one another. Then, after four or five of these headlines are revealed for each candidate, a winner is declared.

I found this to be hilarious and an ingenious way to demonstrate just how ridiculously biased (twiterpated, obsessed, etc.) the mainstream media is with B.O.

After hearing Glenn do this 3-4 minute bit for a couple of days, I came up with the idea of making some YouTube videos to go along with the audio of his show. And now, I've created video to go along with all eight of the "battles" aired so far. Enjoy.

• Battle #1 (16 July)
• Battle #2 (17 July)
• Battle #3 (18 July)
• Battle #4 (21 July)
• Battle #5 (22 July)
• Battle #6 (23 July)
• Battle #7 (24 July)
• Battle #8 (25 July)

On another note, while I'm editing these videos using a Windows application, I'm using open source software on Linux to edit the audio, create the graphic elements used in the video, and transcoding the video in preparation for upload to YouTube.

On Thursday, 17 July, I had the fortunate opportunity to be one of thousands who attended a special movie theater live screening of Glenn Beck's summer stage concert "Glenn Beck '08: Unelectable"

This was a first for Glenn Beck and, to my knowledge, the first of its kind. Glenn gave the performance to a sold out live stage theater in Dallas, TX. The performance was captured by about seven high definition video cameras, directed, and streamed to a satellite where it then went to 350 movie theaters.

I bought five tickets to the performance the first day they were available for Glenn Beck Insiders (about 4-5 days before they were available to the general public) to see the HD simulcast at the Jordan Landing Cinemark theaters in West Jordan, UT.

I don't know how big the other movie theaters were, but there were two sold-out theaters at the Jordan Landing Cinemark and they each probably seated 2-300 people. I' sure there were other theaters that were much larger.

I showed up a little more than two hours before the show was to start because the tickets were all general admission. I wanted to make sure our group had good seats and that we would be able to sit all together. There was one other person who had shown up before me, but she was in line for the other theater. So, I was the first person in line for theater #1. It wasn't long, however, before a handful of other people were in line behind me. Then, with over 90 minutes to go before Glenn went on stage, a young man came, told us we could begin seating, and showed us to the theater. I thought that was super nice because there was a pregnant woman in line behind me and I felt bad for her if she was going to have to stand in line for over an hour. Instead, she could relax in a theater seat.

I made some observations before the show. First of all, there were a lot of pretty attractive women there for the Glenn Beck performance, about half of which were pregnant. Also, the people were very friendly and very talkative, even with people they didn't know.

About 70 minutes before the show started, the projector came on and the dozen or so of us that were in the theater by that point were treated to a Windows "Active Desktop Recovery" dialog... in HD. It didn't inspire my confidence that the show was going to go without any snags.

After a couple minutes, however, the Windows message disappeared and was replaced with a young, pretty round-faced blonde with loop earrings holding a small seemingly homemade clapper board and she was opening and closing it in front of a pair of microphones about once every two seconds.

She was then replaced by a goofy-looking guy in need of a little orthodontic work (or maybe he was just had perma-grin from the excitement of being involved in something so... momentous) who did the same thing, but a little differently. His method of clapping the clapper board was just a little more... goofy. After a while, he was replaced by an older gentleman who had less muscle tone in his arms. It seemed harder for him to keep closing the clapper board and before long, he was replaced by a tall, intimidating fellow who repeatedly closed the clapper with great determination.

It was fascinating.

Twenty five minutes before 6:00, the Glenn Beck preshow began. This was just a slideshow presentation of funny trivia facts, pictures, and silly quotes. I didn't catch much of it because I was running in and out of the theater to meet the others in my group to get them their tickets.

Five minutes before six, a countdown timer appeared on the screen counting down the minutes and seconds "to Glenn." And then, there was a snow-filled screen and static noise.

On the screen appeared a man in an orange vest and an orange hat, like a construction worker or something, fist-bumping with three or four other people in a dark area. After a few moments of watching this, it became apparent we were seeing Glenn Beck backstage. He carried a plastic green toy assault rifle and walked out on stage as we followed, viewing him through the lens of a camera carried by a Steadicam operator.

The theater Glenn performed in was beautiful. It was smaller than I expected and looked more like a large stand-up comedy club than an opera house, an arena, or an auditorium (which I've seen Glenn perform in the last three times I've seen him live.)

Glenn started by introducing two "special" people in the audience. The first was Texas governor Rick Perry (who had perfect hair) and had to have been at least a little uncomfortable being an elected official at a show that was all about slamming "the weasels" in elected positions. The second was soldier/author/all around great guy Marcus Lutrell. Gov. Perry got some applause, but Marcus Lutrell got a standing ovation that went on for several moments. It was clear the audience loved this guy... and for good reason!

Once that was out of the way, Glenn jumped right into the comedy- talking about politicians that come out (as he had) wearing their "huntin' outfit" and carrying their gun that was given to them by a dear family member (never purchased, of course). Glenn said he thought people who don such ridiculous costumes to show the press they're in favor of the second ammendment make him sick and he took off the orange vest, orange hat, and the flannel shirt under the vest. Underneath was a light grey T-shirt with large black letters: "NRA." Hee hee.

The comedy went on for the next hour about politics, about Glenn's city government making ridiculous demands and imposing outrageous restrictions on what Glenn and his family can and can not build in their yard, about Glenn's experience traveling with a firearm through a New York area airport, and about stupid laws (Chico, CA will collect a $500 fine from anyone caught detonating a nuclear weapon within city limits.)

There was a short 15-minute intermission and Glenn came back on in a blue politician's suit and red tie and stood behind a podium with a "Beck '08" placard attached to the front of it.

The second part of the comedy show centered around what Americans (or at least Glenn-minded Americans) want to hear from their presidential candidates: the truth.

(The above picture was taken at a previous performance by another Glenn Beck Insider, but the gist is the same.)

The camera work was great. The timing was awesome. The comedy was the best I've seen of Glenn. My wife was a little... well, okay, very, disturbed by the number of times Glenn joked about wanting to kill someone with a gun.

The message in between the comedy was one about realizing the power in our country is not in Washington, not in your state capitol, not in your City Hall. It's in you! And it comes from God. Glenn encouraged the audience to read history, learn more about the founding fathers, learn more about the history of our great country, and never forget it is a great country worth fighting for, worth dying for, and worth saving from peril.

The message Glenn gave at the Freedom Festival Patriotic Service at Brigham Young University last month is essentially the same message, only without all the comedy mixed in.

So, all in all, I think it was a tremendous success and I congratulate Glenn and Company for a job spectacularly well done. They should be very proud of themselves. I'm certainly proud I could have participated in this special moment in history as an audience member at the first-ever Glenn Beck HD simulcast.

Do you remember when you were in elementary school and you learned that plants had some mysterious process that involved a substance called chlorophyll and energy from sunlight and it made them grow? Do you remember learning that plants emit oxygen and take in carbon dioxide, which is opposite of animal life like humans (we emit carbon dioxide and take in oxygen)?

If carbon dioxide is fuel for plants, having an increase of it in the ecosystem could result in more plant growth, you might think. I'd never heard anything reported about that until a couple days ago. I was listening to Glenn Beck's radio show and was talking to a scientist named Arthur Robinson who said, yes, several studies have shown a correlation between increased carbon dioxide and increased plant growth.

In addition, the conversation between Beck and Robinson touched on the Oregon Petition, another thing I had never heard of. The Oregon Petition is a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists, 9,000 or so of which hold doctorate degrees, which says, in a nutshell, "Global warming is a myth, a fraud, a lie, etc. and should not be the basis for government policy."

Considering that all of the three frontrunning candidates for the US presidency are in favor of sweeping policy changes in the name of global warming, it would appear to be up to us, as citizens, to raise awareness of these issues. "Cap and trade" policy is nothing more than hefty taxes on businesses which do nothing but funnel money into the government. On a global scale, these policies will seriously stifle technological development in less-developed countries and could result in widespread preventable loss of life!

My dad sent me a link to the American Solutions website. I checked it out and was impressed enough to sign up for an account on it. If you are interested discussing and affecting the direction of future policy in America, particularly with regard to energy policy, this site may be of interest to you. It appears to be fairly non-partisan so don't assume it's conservative, liberal, environmentalist, or anything else.

American Solutions does seem to be somewhat weighted toward people who want to get rid of some of the current restrictions that keep oil companies from drilling in various areas of the US. Doing this would boost our domestic production, but unlike some of the people on this site, I don't think that will significantly affect crude oil prices much. We need to get busy investing in all kinds of alternative energy production as well as drill for more domestic oil. 

I've mentioned a thing or two about the book Liberal Fascism, but last week, Glenn Beck had author Jonah Goldberg on his TV program. I've uploaded the segments to YouTube for public consumption. Goldberg presents an interesting argument, not that liberals are Nazis as many accuse him of saying, but that progressive liberal movements such as those being pushed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, bear an eerie resemblance to fascist movements in history.

It pays to study your history or else you're doomed to repeat it.

View the video segments on YouTube.

Fedora 10 was released 25 November (earlier this week), a mere six months after Fedora 9 made its debut. The Fedora community has been hard at work improving the distribution which is the descendant of Fedora Core and Red Hat Linux.

Looking over the release notes, it's obvious a lot of changes have been in the works. To name a few:

• A new graphical boot system named Plymoth displays a simple, but effective boot progress screen that leaves old-school hackers like me feeling left out on the details.
• PulseAudio has been rewritten to be "glitch-free." Makes you wonder why they didn't think of that in the first place. Having played (tried to play) Quake III with Fedora 9, I sincerely hope the experience under Fedora 10 is indeed, glitch-free.
• As a KDE user, I am excited to see a more improved KDE4 platform. The kdepim package has been upgraded to 4.x so I hope to be enjoying a new kontact experience.
• There's a new desktop alternative called LXDE. I'll have to try that out. It's a lightweight desktop which makes it perfect for those VNC sessions that come in handy from time to time.
• My kids are already enjoying the new, improved versions of Extreme Tux Racer, Super Tux Kart, and other Fedora-bundled games.

But, unfortunately, I suck

About six weeks ago, I got involved with the Fedora Documentation Project with the aim of making a contribution to my prefered Linux distribution. After a handful of false-starts, I never did get acclimated to the contribution process, which involves learning about git (distributed version control), Fedora's docbook XML, the documentation project trac system, and Fedora's wiki-based stuff. I probably got about 80% through the process of learning how it all works but never got over the hump and actually started doing it.

My goal is to do that and be an active contributor for Fedora 11 and beyond. At the same time, I hope the documentation project leaders make an effort to decrease the "pain of entry" for those who may have lots to contribute but lack the experience working with the required tools.

Installing Fedora 10

I've installed Fedora 10 on four systems so far: three desktops and a laptop. On two of those, I did a network install by burning a bootable CD with the images/boot.iso image provided on the DVD.

One thing I noticed that is different doing network installs with Fedora 10 is that the network source can't just be a path to the ISO file. Instead, it needs to be the "exploded" ISO file directory structure. That's a little inconvenient as I don't like having to store the ISO and its exploded filesystem on my server resulting in about 9GB of used space instead of the normal 4.5GB.

Anaconda, the Fedora installer, has seen some subtle changes over the last couple of releases. One significant change is that the installer writes partition changes and formats filesystems much earlier in the installation process instead of waiting until package selection is finished.

Another change is the introduction of encrypted filesystem options. I haven't played with that yet.

One thing that is glaringly absent from Fedora 10 is the images/diskboot.img file which I have used in the past to create small bootable installation media using a USB flash drive.

It seems there is a way to do it still but you have to download a Live CD image (about 700MB) and use some commands to turn the Live CD ISO image into a bootable image you can write to a USB drive. There's lots of room for improvement here!

The systems I've installed on are as follows:

• HP desktop, Intel P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, integrate i82865G graphics, 160GB SATA drive
• Generic desktop, AMD Athlon 64 3800+, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6150LE integrated graphics, 80GB drive
• Generic desktop, AMD Athlon XP 2500+, 1.3GB RAM, GeForce FX 5500 video, 2x 80GB drives
• Dell Latitude D830N laptop, 2.6Ghz Core-Duo, 2GB RAM, NVidia Quadro graphics, 160GB SATA

Running Fedora 10

The only real problem I've encountered is on the HP desktop with games that required OpenGL accelerated graphics. Those games worked well on Fedora 8, but do not run accelerated on Fedora 10. Running glxinfo indicates direct rendering support is enabled, so I'm not sure what I need to do to get it working. If anyone has ideas, I'd love to hear them. Plus, my kids will enjoy playing SuperTuxKart on that computer again.

We promised we'd at least try to get some audio and video from UTOSC up as quickly as possible, so I'm sitting here at my computers waiting for my Windows computer to write a modified 23GB AVI so I can start editing the video for the keynote presentations tonight.

So, while that slow process continues, I'll write a little about how today went.

Well, for me, it began very STRESSFULLY!

I went over to Salt Lake Community College (where UTOSC is being held) on Wednesday afternoon to get things set up for shooting video starting Thursday and to help with other UTOSC-related tasks as I am a UTOSC core team member. At 4:30 p.m., a client called me to tell me their server just went down. Right after the call, the Nagios alerts came into my phone saying the same thing. Nick was with me, so I sent him out to get their server back up while I continued setting up equipment. I figured it just needed to be powered back up or something, but we weren't so lucky this time.

This particular server has been pesky and super-sensitive ever since we installed it, making it an annoyance for both us and the client. We weren't really every sure what the problem was, but I strongly suspected the motherboard was just bad even though it worked most of the time.

Nick couldn't get the server to do much. It would love the RAID controller BIOS and then reboot, or it wouldn't display anything at all on the monitor. Finally, I told him to just remove the server and bring it to me and I'd work on it later at home.

Later, when I got the server to my house, I could not get it to do anything. It would power up, but would not POST. I tried all the usual tricks: removing the power cables, disconnecting the motherboard power connector, resetting the CMOS power jumper, chanting a voodoo chant. Nothing worked, so this morning, I made replacing the motherboard my first task. I had hoped I'd be able to get it done quickly and still make it to SLCC to be of some help in the preparation for UTOSC to start at 12:30.

I made it to Universal Systems around 9:00 and they had one socket 1207 motherboard in stock, a Supermicro H8DME-2 dual-processor board. I guess I was pretty lucky they had one. I knew USI was more of an Intel shop, but I thought they'd have more than one AMD board for sale. Lucky for me, they had one. It wasn't cheap, but it was a Supermicro so that's generally a good thing.

I took the server and the new board back to the office and proceeded to install it. The Supermicro board was an EATX board which means it's about as huge as a motherboard can be. The I-Star case I was installing it in could take an EATX motherboard, but it was a tight fit. It took me about an hour or so to get the new board in, everything connected, and powered up. The box didn't have a manual in it, so I downloaded a PDF and printed off the necessary pages for jumpers and connectors.

The LSI Logic RAID controller really slowed down the boot process. I eventually just yanked it out of its PCI-X slot so I could get through BIOS and boot-up issues without waiting.

The Supermicro motherboard had a different onboard SATA chipset than the old board, so I had to install a new initial RAMdisk (initrd) for the Linux kernel. The server was running Fedora Core 6, which I didn't have any media handy for, so I downloaded a rescue disk ISO and burned it to a CD. I ripped a CD drive out of an old desktop so I could boot to the rescue disk. This, of course, all took a little time... more than I anticipated. Finally, I got the system booting by getting the new initial RAMdisk installed by way of the rescue CD. Then, I realized I had to reconfigure the networking for the server because it used a bonded ethernet configuration. All the ethernet addresses would be different, so I had to go through a tedious process of making Fedora Core forget the information it had stored about the previous ethernet ports and learn about the new ones. Finally, I had a system that was ready to go back to the client and it was about ten minutes before noon.

Things went relatively well at the client's office. I had to do a couple other little things to get things working the way they should, but I was out of there shortly after 12:30. All the hustling made me a little shakey, so I hit a local Maverik and got some hot cheesy bread. I made it back to SLCC a little before 1.

Matt Asay was well into his presentation, but Nick had both cameras rolling and I stepped in on one and took control.

Everything else throughout the day went, I thought, very smooth. We shot video for Nathan Blackham's Nagios presentation and would have shot video for Jared Smith's Asterisk presentation, but it got moved to Friday. As a result, we had a little extra time and I would have rounded up a couple people to do some on-camera interviews, but I didn't bother to shave and looked like a wild man, so we didn't do that. Instead, we loaded up the equipment and moved over to the Student Center to get set up for the evening keynote presentation.

It was good we headed over there early. It was more work than either Nick or I expected packing our equipment up, moving it, and setting it back up, so we learned a lot from that.

Dinner was pretty good. More people should have attended the dinner and the keynote presentations. A lot of people did, but I still saw empty chairs. It seems like the SLCC students didn't make it out en force to the dinner and they should have. Free food!

I got home a little after 10 p.m. and started working on this video. Now it's about 12:30 and I'm done talking about my day and this video conversion thing is still going. We'll have to see if I have the patience to get this out tonight. If nothing else, I'll get audio from the presentations to someone to make them available.