First of all, there are quite a few mistakes. "No Experience" being one (he was a senator. Also, I'm pretty sure it would be "a Hawaiian" not "an Hawaiian". Sigh.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
I don't even know what to think.
First of all, there are quite a few mistakes. "No Experience" being one (he was a senator. Also, I'm pretty sure it would be "a Hawaiian" not "an Hawaiian". Sigh.
Super scary.
Referenced in an interesting editorial in the Financial Times, NYU professor Nouriel Roubini believes the U.S. is headed for a catastrophic economic collapse. In a 12 step list published in early February, Roubini outlines the criteria needed to reach this stage of meltdown, from everyday headlines including the worst housing recession so far in history (check) and further losses in subprime-related debt (check) to headlines yet to be published- a wave of corporate defaults and the collapse of hedgefunds.
A little late, but...
The Blue-eyed Rule
On the Presidents’ Day observance meant to celebrate our chief executives, it’s worth considering one striking trait that nearly all these men seem to have shared —an astonishing 38 of our 43 presidents had blue eyes.
On the Presidents’ Day observance meant to celebrate our chief executives, it’s worth considering one striking trait that nearly all these men seem to have shared —an astonishing 38 of our 43 presidents had blue eyes.
Another good quote.
"Service is the rent we pay for being. It is the very purpose of life, and not something you do in your spare time."
--Marian Wright Edelman
children's activist
--Marian Wright Edelman
children's activist
SO something I would do.
For Las Vegas concierges, no request too crazy
Concierges at luxury hotels may be used to receiving over-the-top requests, but in Las Vegas, the requests can be truly outlandish. One concierge describes a request from a guest to have a mariachi band follow him around the casino all night, and another says a guest wanted to have actors portraying Oompa Loompa characters brought to a party.
Concierges at luxury hotels may be used to receiving over-the-top requests, but in Las Vegas, the requests can be truly outlandish. One concierge describes a request from a guest to have a mariachi band follow him around the casino all night, and another says a guest wanted to have actors portraying Oompa Loompa characters brought to a party.
Wowza!
This may be the best music video I've ever seen. Kudos to Mike Barnes/Ian Parker for introducing me to it (i.e. forcing me to watch it). Actually, to really get the full effect, you should download the high resolution video here.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Ugh - if only I didn't have to work late tonight...
http://sanfrancisco.going.com/event-231034;Pillow_Fight
The spirit of collective fun is one of my favorite things about San Francisco. This seems like a pretty awesome way to celebrate the holiday.
The spirit of collective fun is one of my favorite things about San Francisco. This seems like a pretty awesome way to celebrate the holiday.
WellCorps and Wood
Haha, so WellCorps is a San Francisco-based nutritional supplement company that produces products that would probably be supported by Dr. Fünke's 100 Percent Natural Good Time Family Band Solution. They are also the purveyers of this fine product, whose label cracks me up:
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
More love quotes
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/13/DDN3O2606.DTL
So something I would say...
"And I thought, 'Wow, she looks hot.' Then I realized I was looking at myself in a mirror." (Woman to friends, overheard across the street from Cole Coffee in Oakland by Derek McCulloch.)
Others that amused me:
"He's so cheap, he could have gasoline dripping from his nipples and he still wouldn't drive his car across the bay to see me." (Woman in line at Noe Valley Bank of America, overheard by Dennis Gordon.).
"She's Buddhist, he's Catholic, so they're meeting each other halfway and having the wedding in Vegas." (Woman to woman, overheard at a holiday party by Kareasa Wilkins.)
"Tell him if he says anything about last night, I'm never sleeping with his girlfriend again." (Woman on cell phone, overheard in parking lot of Kaiser Hospital in Redwood City by Capt. Harry.)
So something I would say...
"And I thought, 'Wow, she looks hot.' Then I realized I was looking at myself in a mirror." (Woman to friends, overheard across the street from Cole Coffee in Oakland by Derek McCulloch.)
Others that amused me:
"He's so cheap, he could have gasoline dripping from his nipples and he still wouldn't drive his car across the bay to see me." (Woman in line at Noe Valley Bank of America, overheard by Dennis Gordon.).
"She's Buddhist, he's Catholic, so they're meeting each other halfway and having the wedding in Vegas." (Woman to woman, overheard at a holiday party by Kareasa Wilkins.)
"Tell him if he says anything about last night, I'm never sleeping with his girlfriend again." (Woman on cell phone, overheard in parking lot of Kaiser Hospital in Redwood City by Capt. Harry.)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Bay Area Relationship Quotes
Pretty amusing.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/12/DDJPUV2SH.DTL
A selection of my favorites:
"I'm not a bad guy ... a little creepy maybe, but not a bad guy." (Man to man, overheard walking near the UC Berkeley campus by June Vonich.)
"How is it that I get set up on a blind date with the one guy in Santa Cruz that's a Republican?' (Woman on cell phone, overheard on Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz by Amy Wolitzer.)
"I'm glad you asked. Yes, I was once charged with attempted murder." (Couple on what seemed to be first date, overheard at NOPA by B. Stormont.)
"Barack Obama. We've made it our new safe word." (Woman to woman, overheard at the bar at Cafe Rouge by Desmond Yen.)
"Yes, I told him I have a boyfriend and a girlfriend. I mean I live in San Francisco, don't I?" (Person on cell phone on Montgomery Street, overheard by N. Stricker.)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/12/DDJPUV2SH.DTL
A selection of my favorites:
"I'm not a bad guy ... a little creepy maybe, but not a bad guy." (Man to man, overheard walking near the UC Berkeley campus by June Vonich.)
"How is it that I get set up on a blind date with the one guy in Santa Cruz that's a Republican?' (Woman on cell phone, overheard on Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz by Amy Wolitzer.)
"I'm glad you asked. Yes, I was once charged with attempted murder." (Couple on what seemed to be first date, overheard at NOPA by B. Stormont.)
"Barack Obama. We've made it our new safe word." (Woman to woman, overheard at the bar at Cafe Rouge by Desmond Yen.)
"Yes, I told him I have a boyfriend and a girlfriend. I mean I live in San Francisco, don't I?" (Person on cell phone on Montgomery Street, overheard by N. Stricker.)
Monday, February 11, 2008
Carbon footprint
Finally got around to calculating mine via http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx.
I got 7.6 tonnes, mostly from my flights. Anyone else want to share theirs? Apparently the world target is 2 tonnes per capita - so I've got a ways to go. Guess I could move closer to home...
I got 7.6 tonnes, mostly from my flights. Anyone else want to share theirs? Apparently the world target is 2 tonnes per capita - so I've got a ways to go. Guess I could move closer to home...
Thanks Kate for this quote
"I know the pundits, and I know what they say: The math doesn't work out," Huckabee said Saturday morning in Washington. "Well, I didn't major in math, I majored in miracles. And I still believe in those, too."
Priceless.
Priceless.
Disappointing Krugman column
I know he doesn't like Obama. He wanted Edwards and now he's resigned himself to Hillary. And I respect that, as I respect everyone's opinions on the best presidential candidate. But today's column was just a little too dirty and undignified for him - I was a bit shocked. Read for yourself; here are my comments:
The biggest problem I had with this column was that, wouldn’t it have made more sense to demonstrate moving away from hate by examining both sides? Instead, he attacks Obama supporters (not even the candidate, but the supporters) without even speculating on Clinton’s troops. Yes, the Clintons are a dynastic political force and Obama (at least up to this point, though now I’m not so sure) was the underdog – of course the pundits are going to pounce on her. But that’s the media, not the people. Also, the comparison of Obama’s “personality cult” to George W. Bush’s was pretty insulting and a low blow for Krug. Obama is not a Republican and he's not manipulating a specific religious group in order to get elected. In fact, as far as I can see he's not going out of his way to appeal to any specific group (yes, he does have a stronger pull with young people and African-Americans - but that's partially because he is younger and he is half-African - he hasn't been actively trying to reach those groups, the way HC has with Hispanics, women, etc.). Considering the two Democratic candidates have very similar stances on most of the issues and are neck-and-neck in the race, why is Obama the only one with the "personality cult"?
Then Krugman says, “For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.”
Wouldn’t the same apply to his Obama remarks? Is he actually claiming that there is no "hero worship" in the Clinton campaign? Was it just me, or was the entire column innately hypocritical? I adore Krugman and economically/socially, we get along pretty well. But this leads me to think he’s taking this race too personally and letting it affect the quality of his work, which is a bit disappointing. I know he wants us to vote on the issues, and I agree of course, but health care is pretty much the only issue he brings up! If he truly thought Obama was unfit for the presidency, you’d think he’d prove it using more than his health care plan (because let’s face it, those plans have to make it through the House and the Senate, plus somehow integrate with the current health care system – they’re not going to look anything like their current state by the time they're enacted – plus, it’s not the most important issue to most Americans – Iraq and the economy are – but he never mentions them). I’m just disappointed that’s all – I know we’re young and idealistic, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t examined the issues and I find the insinuation offensive. Krugman’s going to need to back up his story a bit more to persuade me. And the fact that he hasn’t yet, is a BIG disappointment. I’d expect more from an intellectual, particularly an economist.
Follow-up from original post:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/on-race-cards-and-all-that/
This clarifies his position brought up in my last post and eases my mind... somewhat. I still don't think he explains fully why he believes there is a "personality cult" surrounding Obama whereas his positions are nearly identical to Hillary's. I think Krugman should have kept his criticisms of the media and his criticism of "Obama supporters" separate. I agree with him in the above-posted link, I think the media has blown a lot of the Clinton stuff out of proportion. But considering the Clintons' knowledge of the media's propensity to do so, and yesterday's announcement of Hillary's staff shake-up - it just makes her campaign look poorly run.
This troubles me though: "Folks, you’ve been played like a fiddle by people in the media who just plain hate the Clintons. They tried to take Hillary down over her clothes, her voice, her tears. When none of that worked, they invented a race war. There are some perfectly good arguments against Hillary — Iraq, the presence of people like Mark Penn, the big-money Dems in her circle. But this really is Al-Gore-says-he-invented-the-Internet stuff. And it’s deeply depressing to see so many progressives fall for it."
First of all, thanks for the patronizing tone, Krugman - that was necessary. Secondly, he has absolutely no proof that the media's portrayal of the Clintons has had an effect on the public - unless, of course, you count votes in the primaries and poll results. But why couldn't those results be reflective of Obama support based on the issues and his vision for the future? Why does Krugman assume the American people (the ones who support Obama, at least) have been duped? Why couldn't it be a result of those "perfectly good arguments" listed above? Who says progressives have fallen for the media's line? (Unless he's counting the people e-mailing him as progressives, which may or may not be true - but I'm guessing a lot of those who wrote him didn't give as much time and thought to their responses as he gave to his - which, yes, is their fault, but who is he addressing here?)
But back to the original column, two final things that just irked me:
1. "I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody." Proof? Please? Again, I think this is Krugman mixing up Obama supporters and the media (and who really knows who they support - they're just trying to sell papers or whatever).
2. "I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election." This has happened. In many forms, but most notably at the Los Angeles debate - where the two candidates not only profressed their support and admiration for each other, but refused to deny the possibility of an Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama ticket. I think this whole "venom" thing is a cheap shot at Obama supporters, when Krugman's real problem is with the media's coverage of the race. That, and his potential disappointment at picking the loser...twice.
The biggest problem I had with this column was that, wouldn’t it have made more sense to demonstrate moving away from hate by examining both sides? Instead, he attacks Obama supporters (not even the candidate, but the supporters) without even speculating on Clinton’s troops. Yes, the Clintons are a dynastic political force and Obama (at least up to this point, though now I’m not so sure) was the underdog – of course the pundits are going to pounce on her. But that’s the media, not the people. Also, the comparison of Obama’s “personality cult” to George W. Bush’s was pretty insulting and a low blow for Krug. Obama is not a Republican and he's not manipulating a specific religious group in order to get elected. In fact, as far as I can see he's not going out of his way to appeal to any specific group (yes, he does have a stronger pull with young people and African-Americans - but that's partially because he is younger and he is half-African - he hasn't been actively trying to reach those groups, the way HC has with Hispanics, women, etc.). Considering the two Democratic candidates have very similar stances on most of the issues and are neck-and-neck in the race, why is Obama the only one with the "personality cult"?
Then Krugman says, “For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.”
Wouldn’t the same apply to his Obama remarks? Is he actually claiming that there is no "hero worship" in the Clinton campaign? Was it just me, or was the entire column innately hypocritical? I adore Krugman and economically/socially, we get along pretty well. But this leads me to think he’s taking this race too personally and letting it affect the quality of his work, which is a bit disappointing. I know he wants us to vote on the issues, and I agree of course, but health care is pretty much the only issue he brings up! If he truly thought Obama was unfit for the presidency, you’d think he’d prove it using more than his health care plan (because let’s face it, those plans have to make it through the House and the Senate, plus somehow integrate with the current health care system – they’re not going to look anything like their current state by the time they're enacted – plus, it’s not the most important issue to most Americans – Iraq and the economy are – but he never mentions them). I’m just disappointed that’s all – I know we’re young and idealistic, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t examined the issues and I find the insinuation offensive. Krugman’s going to need to back up his story a bit more to persuade me. And the fact that he hasn’t yet, is a BIG disappointment. I’d expect more from an intellectual, particularly an economist.
Follow-up from original post:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/on-race-cards-and-all-that/
This clarifies his position brought up in my last post and eases my mind... somewhat. I still don't think he explains fully why he believes there is a "personality cult" surrounding Obama whereas his positions are nearly identical to Hillary's. I think Krugman should have kept his criticisms of the media and his criticism of "Obama supporters" separate. I agree with him in the above-posted link, I think the media has blown a lot of the Clinton stuff out of proportion. But considering the Clintons' knowledge of the media's propensity to do so, and yesterday's announcement of Hillary's staff shake-up - it just makes her campaign look poorly run.
This troubles me though: "Folks, you’ve been played like a fiddle by people in the media who just plain hate the Clintons. They tried to take Hillary down over her clothes, her voice, her tears. When none of that worked, they invented a race war. There are some perfectly good arguments against Hillary — Iraq, the presence of people like Mark Penn, the big-money Dems in her circle. But this really is Al-Gore-says-he-invented-the-Internet stuff. And it’s deeply depressing to see so many progressives fall for it."
First of all, thanks for the patronizing tone, Krugman - that was necessary. Secondly, he has absolutely no proof that the media's portrayal of the Clintons has had an effect on the public - unless, of course, you count votes in the primaries and poll results. But why couldn't those results be reflective of Obama support based on the issues and his vision for the future? Why does Krugman assume the American people (the ones who support Obama, at least) have been duped? Why couldn't it be a result of those "perfectly good arguments" listed above? Who says progressives have fallen for the media's line? (Unless he's counting the people e-mailing him as progressives, which may or may not be true - but I'm guessing a lot of those who wrote him didn't give as much time and thought to their responses as he gave to his - which, yes, is their fault, but who is he addressing here?)
But back to the original column, two final things that just irked me:
1. "I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody." Proof? Please? Again, I think this is Krugman mixing up Obama supporters and the media (and who really knows who they support - they're just trying to sell papers or whatever).
2. "I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election." This has happened. In many forms, but most notably at the Los Angeles debate - where the two candidates not only profressed their support and admiration for each other, but refused to deny the possibility of an Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama ticket. I think this whole "venom" thing is a cheap shot at Obama supporters, when Krugman's real problem is with the media's coverage of the race. That, and his potential disappointment at picking the loser...twice.
What if world leaders were subjected to roasts?
“Also speaking at the event were Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, Japanese prime minister Yasuo Fukuda, and longtime foreign policy adviser and roast favorite Henry Kissinger, who spent the majority of his speech making sexual overtures to French president Nicolas Sarkozy's bride, model Carla Bruni. Although Bruni was seated in the audience, Kissinger politely offered her a seat on his face so he could get a better look at the only place a French leader has successfully invaded since Lombardy.”
Thank you Herbert!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/opinion/09herbert.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Great column, really hits the mark. Thoughts? What's the big idea? (I've got one, but I'll share it at another time.)
Note: I've now blogged more in 2008 thus far than in all of 2007. Hooray for one New Year's Resolution kept.
Great column, really hits the mark. Thoughts? What's the big idea? (I've got one, but I'll share it at another time.)
Note: I've now blogged more in 2008 thus far than in all of 2007. Hooray for one New Year's Resolution kept.
Do you know what this could do to reducing waste?!?!
Sometimes there are very exciting prospects for a pretty mundane idea.
Grit as amenity
This story intrigued me. I know many people for whom "grit", that is, living a rougher sort of life in a rougher sort of place, is a very attractive option to have. A former co-worker couldn't get used to the gentleness of San Francisco, and made a move back to the East Coast - I think he lives in Brooklyn or the Bronx now. But more and more, I feel I'm running into these sorts of people, particularly in my age cohort. I've even had similar tendencies - when I go back to Philly, I revel in the grime, the mean streets, the stone faces. It's charming, in a way. This article really hit home when talking about gentrification:
'Robert Gross, an executive vice president at Prudential Douglas Elliman, sees the area as attracting "someone who still seeks some semblance of the grit that makes New York New York."
'Yet the prevailing thesis is that grit is not so easily found in the East Village as it once was. As with other New York neighborhoods, development has ushered in safer streets, and with them the suspicion that something has been lost.'
It reminds me a bit of this song, by LCD Soundsystem (much more effective with the actual music):
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
Like a rat in a cage
Pulling minimum wage
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
New York, you're safer
And you're wasting my time
Our records all show
You are filthy but fine
But they shuttered your stores
When you opened the doors
To the cops who were bored
Once they'd run out of crime
New York, you're perfect
Don't please don't change a thing
Your mild billionaire mayor's
Now convinced he's a king
So the boring collect
I mean all disrespect
In the neighborhood bars
I'd once dreamt I would drink
New York, I Love You
But you're freaking me out
There's a ton of the twist
But we're fresh out of shout
Like a death in the hall
That you hear through your wall
New York, I Love You
But you're freaking me out
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
Like a death of the heart
Jesus, where do I start?
But you're still the one pool
Where I'd happily drown
And oh..
Take me off your mailing list
For kids that think it still exists
Yes, for those who think it still exists
Maybe I'm wrong
And maybe you're right
Maybe I'm wrong
And maybe you're right
Maybe you're right
Maybe I'm wrong
And just maybe you're right
And Oh..
Maybe mother told you true
And they're always be something there for you
And you'll never be alone
But maybe she's wrong
And maybe I'm right
And just maybe she's wrong
Maybe she's wrong
And maybe I'm right
And if so, is there?
'Robert Gross, an executive vice president at Prudential Douglas Elliman, sees the area as attracting "someone who still seeks some semblance of the grit that makes New York New York."
'Yet the prevailing thesis is that grit is not so easily found in the East Village as it once was. As with other New York neighborhoods, development has ushered in safer streets, and with them the suspicion that something has been lost.'
It reminds me a bit of this song, by LCD Soundsystem (much more effective with the actual music):
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
Like a rat in a cage
Pulling minimum wage
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
New York, you're safer
And you're wasting my time
Our records all show
You are filthy but fine
But they shuttered your stores
When you opened the doors
To the cops who were bored
Once they'd run out of crime
New York, you're perfect
Don't please don't change a thing
Your mild billionaire mayor's
Now convinced he's a king
So the boring collect
I mean all disrespect
In the neighborhood bars
I'd once dreamt I would drink
New York, I Love You
But you're freaking me out
There's a ton of the twist
But we're fresh out of shout
Like a death in the hall
That you hear through your wall
New York, I Love You
But you're freaking me out
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
Like a death of the heart
Jesus, where do I start?
But you're still the one pool
Where I'd happily drown
And oh..
Take me off your mailing list
For kids that think it still exists
Yes, for those who think it still exists
Maybe I'm wrong
And maybe you're right
Maybe I'm wrong
And maybe you're right
Maybe you're right
Maybe I'm wrong
And just maybe you're right
And Oh..
Maybe mother told you true
And they're always be something there for you
And you'll never be alone
But maybe she's wrong
And maybe I'm right
And just maybe she's wrong
Maybe she's wrong
And maybe I'm right
And if so, is there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
