I took a lot of delight in reading this New York Times article (thanks Crescat Sententia!) that gives some creedence to my cleaning strategy (or lack thereof). For the record, I don't think I'm "unclean"... sure, there's usually a pile of dishes in my sink, but I'm a big believer in the power of rinsing, so the sink contains many dishes but few (if any) food remnants. The rest of the kitchen? Similar strategy... if I've spilled something I'll clean it up, but there's no need to wipe things down with a bunch of chemicals that are just as bad for you.

As I spent 45 minutes standing in the cold and the slush waiting for the bus the other day, I had plenty of time to think about the recent news about the Port Authority's recurring financial woes. This is troubling albeit fairly expected, after PAT needed to be bailed out last summer. Now, PAT is floating the same solutions to the budget woes that they talked about last summer:

"Unless the state Legislature establishes a dedicated and growing source of funding for public transportation, Skoutelas said, the Port Authority will have to consider service reductions, fare increases and employee layoffs in 2005."

Public transportation is essential in a big city (and yes, Pittsburgh does qualify as a "big city", even if it is smaller than, say, New York City) and the hallmark of a good public transportation system is ubiquitousness. If I can go to the bus stop or the subway stop without consulting a schedule and expect a shuttle to come within 10 minutes or so, I'm much more likely to rely upon that transportation for my day-to-day needs. But when I need to wait 45 minutes to an hour for a bus to come, I'm much more likely to drive, bike or walk to my destination.

Cutting service won't help me in my pursuit of ubiquitous public transit, and it won't help those who depend on after-hours or Sunday service (two of the rumored service cuts). It will also exacerbate the problem of overcrowding on buses. Anyone who has ever been on an outbound 61 bus between 4 and 7 PM knows that we can't fit one more person, let alone an entire trip's worth of not-picked-up people on the bus. Increasing fares makes the bus less cost-efficient for riders and gives them another reason to look elsewhere for their transit needs. Fares here are already more expensive than those in San Francisco, Houston, Boston, Portland, Memphis, and Jacksonville, just to name a few.

The end result of the cutbacks would be buses that run less frequently, are more crowded and cost more. This eventually will cost the Port Authority some of its ridership, which will in turn result in a loss of revenue, which will prompt more cuts... that's right, it's a downward spiral.

PAT's CEO says that "there's no growth on the revenue side, but the authority is strapped by rising fuel costs and double-digit increases in health care and pension liabilities, as well as a continued shortfall in state funding..." It might go against common sense, but I'd think that by EXPANDING service, PAT could do more to increase ridership, and hence its revenues.... The theory here is that a better experience with the bus makes you more likely to take the bus, which gives the bus a better reputation in the community, which means more people take the bus, etc...

Specifically, expanding the light-rail service and building it out to serve new areas (as opposed to just the south hills) would combat the effects of what will continue to be rising fuel costs. Where the money to do this comes from, I don't really know. The city should have a vested interest in a robust transit system, but they don't have a dime to spare these days. In any case, throwing money after "a public awareness and education campaign designed to make employees and the public more aware of what may constitute suspicious behavior or packages" seems like a silly idea, given the acute lack of bus bombings in Pittsburgh. Besides, if someone can't figure "suspicious" out for themselves, is it likely we can teach them about it? And for those people who are educated by the system, might it not just make them paranoid?

Howard Dean continued his downward spiral the other day, dumping Joe Trippi as his campaign manager. As Howard Kurtz put it: "The man who pioneered Dean's Internet strategy is tossed out like the manager of a losing baseball team? Was it Trippi who suggested that Dean start yelling during his Iowa concession speech?"

Indeed... In a field of imperfect Democratic candidates, Dean's strength was his organization and ability to reach out to voters and get them excited and mobilized. Perhaps I didn't emphasize this strength enough in my Dean review, but the fervent support it has incubated and the money it has raised are really what has kept his campaign propped up all along. His message is mediocre and being undermined every time something good happens in Iraq. His demeanor... well, quite frankly it's miserable.

Late breaking news is that Dean is pulling ads in the 7 states holding primaries next Tuesday, saving his money for a comeback assault in Michigan, Washington and Wisconsin. Being a front-runner apparently didn't help him at all... probably the beginning of the end, but if the remaining organization can be put to good use by the Democrats generally, it would be a big step toward getting George Bush out of the White House.

I don't really know what to say about this... it's just really weird...

Outside the Beltway asks:
1. Given that a.) only the political junkies such as those who read and maintain this blog care enough about the results of the New Hampshire primaries to need intermediate results and b.) there are all manner of 24-hour news stations, blogs, other Internet sources, etc., why do the major networks bother to cover relatively routine news like this anymore?

a) I'm not so sure that only political junkies are interested in New Hampshire results. Certainly those who go to the polls next week might be watching to see how the candidates are doing and what they have to say...

b) I also think it's a stretch to call the first primary of an unusually competitive Presidential campaign "routine news." That would seem especially true in light of the surprising results from Iowa last week.

Beyond that, I think the reason is rather simple: there are a large number of people who do not have cable television or Internet access. Yours truly isn't much of a television person and only now has cable upon the insistence of a new roommate. I could do without cable. Those who do have Internet access - again, not everyone - aren't necessarily even aware of the blogosphere. For those of us who live in the blogosphere on a daily basis, it's something we're very much aware of... but I can't imagine my parents have ever read any blogs... they may not even know what Google is!

Besides, from a network perspective, isn't Tuesday night political programming during the campaign season a better choice than airing re-runs of some lame comedy? If you have a ratings champion, like American Idol, you have something you'd rather air. But otherwise, doesn't this help fill out the season with more new programming?

Joe Lieberman just said that he was in a three-way dead heat for third place in New Hampshire... is he joking? I mean, I realize there's spin... but every estimate I've seen has him coming in a very distinct 5th place... has he slept in the last week? While not as dramatic as Howard Dean's Iowa speech, it seems just as far out in left field...

I haven't been everywhere... but I've been a bunch of places... (and no, they don't all now vote Republican...)

create your own visited states map

for what it's worth, I've also seen from the ground three (and possibly four) states that I've not yet set foot in: Kentucky (from Cincinnati), Kansas (from I-44 at the Oklahoma-Missouri border), Wisconsin (from near Dubuque, Iowa, across the Mississippi River) and probably Connecticut (from the Empire State Building)... thanks to Unlearned Hand for the pointer...

As I promised a few weeks ago, it's time to review the Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination. Tonight, we'll start with Howard Dean. That's appropriate, since he was the first candidate who appealed to me in this race. I was first impressed by Dean's June 22, 2003 appearance on Meet the Press. The interview focused mainly on domestic issues, with a relatively short bit on Iraq.

In this portion, Dean confirmed an earlier belief that he "would be surprised if [Saddam Hussein] didn't have chemicals and biological weapons." His large fault with the Bush administration seemed to be its execution of the war plan, acknowledging that the number of troops we should have in Iraq is "[m]ore than we have now." This, IMO, is the Democrats' strongest criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq situation: the lack of preparedness for the situations that (predictably) arose.

Much to my dismay, Dean has since spent much more time harping on how going to war was the wrong choice, saying that the US is no safer after the capture of Saddam Hussein, and how the Iraqi people are no better off (even after saying they were better off without Saddam on the aforementioned Meet the Press interview). All this badmouthing of the war makes me wonder how much interest he could possibly have in finishing the job of winning the "hearts and minds" of ordinary Iraqis. What he (and any other viable Democratic candidate) have to realize was summarized nicely by Jonathan Chait at the New Republic:

"The decision to go to war is over. It should not matter what position a candidate took except insofar as it reflects on that candidate's future foreign policies."

The anti-war stance has carried Dean so far and built him a loyal following, but I'm afraid it has carried him right past the "bridge out" sign and over the cliff. At this point, it seems difficult for him to retract his stance enough to acknowledge the good that could come out of the war, at least not without commiting political suicide. Without doing this, he's going to have a tough time appealing to the majority of the American public that currently supports the war.

As I mentioned, it seems as if Dean built his support mostly among the anti-war crowd. Not surprisingly, these people are probably also very anti-Bush. After the 2000 election mess, there have been a lot of hard feelings about how the election was stolen. No doubt, these divisions have only grown deeper because of the heavy-handed Republican leadership that has governed as if it had a clear mandate (with the latest example being the recess appointment of Charles Pickering).

A President who can govern in a more bipartisan manner would likely close some of the gaps between the two sides in American politics and produce results that benefit everybody. Although Dean really does have some centrist, if not conservative tendencies on issues like fiscal responsibility, gun control and (to an extent) gay marriage, the fire and brimstone approach he has taken (and his core supporters seem to appreciate) might make it difficult to get others to work with him.

On the plus side, Dean has built a fantastic organization and generated a lot of enthusiasm. He's shown that he can lead his followers, deploy them and keep them motivated very well. These are all characteristics we would want in a President. Match that with the way he's raised money over the Internet, through one of the first large-scale successful uses of micropayment, and you have a man who has the look of a very good manager. But can he manage himself?

Time and time again, Dean has either put his foot in his mouth or gotten a little too angry... er... "intense"... and when you have a reputation for being a hothead and you go on a crazy state-listing rant after a disappointing performance at the caucuses, how are you going to react when the Palestinians don't like your peace plan? or when China takes down one of your planes? More importantly, how will people think you will react? After all, your reaction won't matter much if the people don't want it to. And that's the problem for Dean. With perceived anger management problems, I don't see him being a strong candidate in a general election... he just won't get enough moderate/centrist/independent support.

In the end, I expect (and hope) that Dean won't win the Democratic nomination. Although he does have some points in his favor, he doesn't strike me as being very electable, due to the issues of anger management, the perception that he's radically left wing, and the Johnny-One-Note campaign against the war in Iraq. I just hope that if he doesn't win the nomination, he remembers what he said in that June Meet the Press interview: "I'm doing my best to try to keep some semblance of unity in this party. We are all going to need each other by the end of the day."

Two things you never thought you'd see in the same picture: the pope and breakdancing...

I'm watching 2001: A Space Odyssey right now... literally... as I'm blogging... Actually, the adventure started out simply as watching the movie, but then I decided I needed something to make the time go by. I'll hold off calling the movie 'bad' until its over - it took more than half of Falling Down for me to realize what a great movie that was - but this film has some serious problems that might be hard for a few more scenes to resolve. Notably, the film develops so agonizingly slowly... you know what's going to happen... and then you watch every... single... step... of... the... process... There may be some artistry in showing revolutions of a space station, but it's lost on me... and maybe it's one of those things that will get tied in later, but what was up with that obelisk and the first FORTY MINUTES of the movie that were spent on it? If this film were being made today - or perhaps by another director (although I'll admit to being generally unfamiliar with Kubrick's other works), I'd guess that the movie would be shortened by about an hour. And it would probably be better.

UPDATE: naturally, it wasn't more than two minutes after I posted that the relevanceof the obelisk was explained... nonetheless, the movie is over now and I'm still extremely unimpressed... and the soundtrack just about gave me a headache... the movie gets a very high rating on IMDB - in fact, as of today it ranks as the #68 movie of all time... but I think it would be better served as an episode of The Twilight Zone... or better yet, The Outer Limits...

Thomas Friedman's column in today's New York Times comments on the policies of Dean and the other Democrats vis-a-vis Iraq in a much more eloquent way than I could possibly hope to do. Some excerpts:

"Without a serious Democratic critique of the war — and I define "serious" as one that connects with the gut middle-American feeling that the Islamist threat had to be confronted, but one that lays out a smarter approach than the Bush team's — Mr. Bush has gotten away with being sloppy and unprepared for postwar Iraq."

"My hope is that Iowa will embolden the Blair Democrats to shuck off their intimidation, by Mr. Bush and Mr. Dean, and press their case. It is the only way to build a national consensus for what's going to be a long cold-war-like struggle to strengthen the forces of moderation and weaken the forces of violent intolerance within the Arab-Muslim world — which is what the real war on terrorism is about."

If you buy Slithery D's argument that being efficient is tantamount to preventing genocide, I deserve a medal. I don't know if it is frightening or comforting it is that this passage resonates with me:

"I have a disturbing obsession with efficiency when performing everyday tasks.... most of my behavior in this area is trivial, requires positive effort on my behalf, and goes completely unnoticed."

On one hand, that anyone has time, energy or desire to consider this level of minutia is disturbing. However, since I myself do many of these things myself - choosing to walk down the side of the road featuring the inside part of a curve, getting off the bus at the stop prior to/after mine if nobody else is getting off at my stop and people are getting off at other stops - I suppose there's a certain level of comfort I can take in knowing that I'm not alone in my pursuit of a more efficient world.

That said, I'm not so certain that a) any efficiency is created by these miniscule decisions or b) Slithery D isn't being inefficient by refusing to hold doors.

First off, the amount of thought that goes into a decision to hold a door or not to hold a door has to be factored into the equation. For the sake of argument, we'll say that this takes one second. Even if he doesn't hold the door, this is one second lost forever. Given that he sometimes holds doors, he presumably also considers whether or not there will be an efficiency gain each and every time he passes through a door (or at least every time there is a person trailing him). If, then, he loses one second each time he passes through a door, then just to get to a break-even point, he would need to create efficiency gains by holding doors equivalent to the sum of these lost seconds. If, then, he were to only hold the door one time out of ten, the efficiency gain needed for the whole exercize to avoid inefficiency would need to be nine seconds per door hold - that's a lot of efficiency... and that just gets you to a break-even point.

Furthermore, his whole analysis ignores other efficiencies that might result from holding doors. While at the moment, Slithery D might save 4 seconds for the world's people, how does this affect him (and all of us, since he implicates those for whom he holds the door) farther down the line? For one, the soiling of Slithery D's reputation in the community will likely cause some loss of stature. Even if the loss is a small one, it is relevant (since all of the units we're dealing with are small). These reputational losses could cause others not to hold doors for Slithery D (which could provide a boost to his personal efficiency) or they could even cost him job offers, where he and another candidate are otherwise evenly good choices.

Also because of this loss of stature, he is less likely to get laid - although he acknowledges the difference in this likelihood is minimal at best. Looking farther down the road, perhaps this reduced likelihood of sexual encounters makes it less likely that our hero will become involved in a cohabitating relationship that would save him money. Or even if the lesser chance of sexual encounter doesn't reduce that likelihood, then the loss of reputation would. This loss is certainly inefficient.

Now while these arguments are conjecture and the types of inefficiencies pointed out here may not ever be realized, one grand inefficiency that Slithery D has created is the need to explain his behavior (both to his lady friends and the rest of us) and for the rest of the blogosphere to respond to this inane argument. Oh, the moments of my life I will never recover....

"I don't get Paris Hilton. She has the body of a surface to air missile and the posture of linguini." (Mixtape Marathon)

"'Abstinence is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.' And parking is the only way to avoid car accidents." (Outside the Beltway)

I'm watching the CNN coverage of the Iowa caucuses tonight, and they have reporters at the Iowa headquarters for the top four democratic candidates... three of these reporters are women, and they are all wearing the same thing... well, not exactly the same thing, but they're all wearing black shirts with red jackets over top... I don't know if CNN has a dress code/branding strategy for their reporters now, but assuming they don't, it seems a little creepy to me... not sure why, but it just seems weird to me...

I've been coming up with more and more things to write about on this here blog lately, but amidst all this thought, I haven't had time to write about any of it! *sigh*
anyway, I'll try and catch up sometime soon, posting my thoughts about going to mars (generally in favor of it, unlike most of the blogosphere), my presidential candidate review, and facility maintenance at school...

for now, I'm just going to procrastinate doing all that and work on some other things I've been putting off...

so I took a nifty little online presidential candidate quiz and here's who it tells me I'd be best suited to vote for...

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Socialist Candidate (73%)
3. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (67%)
4. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (67%)
5. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (67%)
6. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (62%)
7. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (62%)
8. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (58%)
9. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (55%)
10. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (52%)
11. Libertarian Candidate (39%)
12. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (38%)
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (33%)
14. Bush, President George W. - Republican (16%)
15. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (9%)

I actually ran this late last night and got slightly different results... wesley clark was nearly tied with the other top democratic candidates, lieberman had a little higher percentage, and I think edwards was a little lower... naturally, the ambiguity in some of the answers tends to suggest different answers and therefore different results from trial to trial... I also didn't include certain candidates last night, and the socialists were one of the ones left out... I'm moderately surprised that it told me that I'm a socialist...

but among the democratic candidates, kucinich isn't the one I liked most upon first glance... neither are sharpton or dean for that matter... I know you're just dying to know who my choice is, but you'll have to tune in another day to find out... I'll be reviewing the democratic candidates shortly - probably after I finish the site redesign and hopefully before iowa... (or at least new hampshire... I just got an old-school NES, so I'm spending some time with the new toy now...)

Finally, we're starting to hear grumblings about the length of football games. Critics have been assailing baseball because of the length of games for years - to the point where cutting down on the time of games has been a major objective for Major League Baseball. But nary a word has been said about football games, which on average are longer than baseball games!

This past fall, I stopped watching football, for the most part. By the end of the season, I would go entire weekends without watching any football, and I loved it! All of the sudden, I actually had time to do things on the weekends, instead of having an entire Sunday sucked away sitting in front of the television watching games I really didn't care about. It was great!

I've maintained for a long time that the only things propping up football's popularity are betting and fantasy leagues. My fantasy league (where I lost the championship game) was certainly the only reason I even paid any attention to football this year. If that's the mark of excitement, I could easily be a NASCAR fan, simply by signing up for a NASCAR fantasy league. But what's the point? I'm sure I could find other ways to create excitement in my life other than signing up for a NASCAR - or even a fantasy football league. And there are certainly better things to do with a Sunday than sitting in front of the television for 7-8 hours to see maybe half an hour of action.

Blogs gone wild
As my regular readers (all one of me) may have noticed, this blog has been undergoing some massive changes: a redesign (still in progress), an attempted renaming (still in progress... anyone have any better ideas?)... and now I've added a commenting feature! now I can tell myself what I think of my posts! yippie! other fun features will be coming soon... and once that's all in place, the biggest upgrade of all: more content!