tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4803877042386079292024-02-19T17:43:49.747-05:00Will the World End in the Night Time?Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-32752745705515111312011-05-30T22:04:00.004-04:002011-05-30T22:20:41.673-04:00Doing Things the Hard Way<p>I really don't know why. But I did it.It took forever. But everything seems to have worked out. I'm tempted to carve this into a lino block and print out copies, but that would be way too much work. The bizarreness of the technologies involved would be pretty cool, though.</p><br /><table style="width:auto;"><tr><td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/FQ9kYIwyY47UCgmUTPO5tWtNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWx7RXv1GrbNgjWF89v5wFXqkM4Coowk33YdAu5MrtHzdvk598w_UAy6Sq3mvVsQ0n3HgT3NSt46MqOrrVugfSqm1e-iZmn9JkFFKTJtQGi8HsCJ7dFCrQYX-u01fbfQZgEiVEqSuq890/s800/IMG_20110530_220303.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:11px; text-align:right">From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sredir?uname=jeremy.waterfall&target=ALBUM&id=5300239312967587185&feat=embedwebsite"></a></td></tr></table>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-29879162201728319232011-04-29T01:00:00.002-04:002011-04-29T01:03:19.710-04:00Another Way to Get to This Blog<img src="http://qrcode.kaywa.com/img.php?s=8&d=http%3A%2F%2Fwilltheworldendinthenighttime.blogspot.com" alt="qrcode" /><br>Isn't technology these days pretty amazing?Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-5514936981643914142011-04-25T23:43:00.001-04:002011-04-25T23:43:08.430-04:00So, Yeah, Still Not Much of a Blogger<div><p>But, I've got a fancy new phone with a nice little app for Blogger, so the technology end of things is all set. Still working on the motivation part. And this phone also has Angry Birds, so that's not going to help...</p>
</div>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-29327473913535606382011-03-14T03:50:00.001-04:002011-03-14T03:53:47.229-04:00I'm Looking To Bump Up The Font SizeSeriously, if I can figure out how to make things a bit more readable, life would be awesome. Or something...Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-86464715838668486692011-03-14T03:33:00.000-04:002011-03-14T03:33:41.231-04:00New York Marriage Equality: Where Are They Now?I promised several posts ago to get further into what the situation currently is in New York for the hopes of marriage equality. New York state politics is bizarre in a highly dysfunctional way, so it's not always easy to keep track of what's going on. Luckily, we can skip right past the Governor, a staunch supporter of marriage rights for same-sex couples, and the Assembly, which has passed similar legislation in the past with large majorities and would do so again. One “feature” of the New York legislature seems to be that as unpopular as it is, incumbents overwhelmingly get reelected.<br /><br />The Senate is where the difficulty is. While the Assembly has historically been Democrat-dominated, the Senate was in Republican control from 1965–2008. In 2008, the Democrats took control with 32 out of 62 members. Now, the way the New York legislature works is that the leaders of each chamber pretty much control everything. And, in June 2009, a couple of the Democrats, Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate, backed the election of a Republican to the presidency of the Senate. After a month or so of weirdness, the original Senate President, Malcolm Smith, was back in the job.<br /><br />All this was going on at the same time as the debate over a marriage equality bill, which ended up getting pushed back to December. For whatever reason, this bill was something that got a vote that went like the way normal legislatures work, rather than the Senate President just getting his way, in the New York style. Although it seemed unlikely to pass, advocates including then-Governor David Paterson pushed to get a vote on the record. The result was 24 Senators in favor of marriage equality and 38 opposed. Which was a bit worse than expected, but at least we knew where everyone stood.<br /><br />Looking at that result, all 30 Republicans opposed the bill. Not really any surprises there, although supposedly there were a few who would have signed on had the vote been close. Whoever they are, they're still keeping quiet about it, at least publicly. There were eight Democrats that also voted against the bill. These are the ones I'd like to focus on here. Let's take a look:<br /><ol><li>Joe Addabo of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/15">15th District</a> in Queens is still in office. There are reports, or at least hints, that he may currently be undecided on the issue, so if you're a constituent, <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/joseph-p-addabbo-jr/contact">contact him here</a> and let him know what you think.</li><li>Darrel Aubertine of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/48">48th District</a> including Oswego and Watertown was defeated by Republican Patty Ritchie in November, 2010. She doesn't seem to be a supporter of marriage equality, but the Tea Party types seem to think she's too moderate, so maybe there's hope. She can be reached <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/patty-ritchie/contact">here</a>.</li><li>Ruben Diaz, Sr. of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/32">32nd District</a> in the Bronx is probably the fiercest opponent of marriage equality in the Senate. A Pentecostal minister, whose son is currently the Bronx Borough President, I'm figuring we can write off any chance of him changing his mind or being voted out.</li><li>Shirley Huntley of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/10">10th District</a> in Queens easily won her primary against pro-equality challenger Lynn Nunes. Not too much to hope for here, although her opposition seems to have mellowed. If you're a constituent, get in touch with her <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/shirley-l-huntley/contact">here</a>.</li><li>Carl Kruger of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/27">27th District</a> in Brooklyn is the one inspiring me to write this all. He's still in office, but just the other day turned himself in to federal authorities over charges that he's accepted over $1 million in bribes. Money that was apparently then <a href="http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/anti-gay-state-senators-secret-gay-life-is-revealed-in-bribery-indictment.php">laundered by Kruger's boyfriend</a>, who's family he lived with in a mansion (which looks <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365435/State-senator-voted-gay-marriage-gay-lover-helped-funnel-1-million-bribes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml">exactly like</a> something a Mafia boss would own, because that's what it was originally) outside his district. So, his seat's probably up for grabs pretty soon, as all his colleagues are shocked, shocked at corruption in the New York Legislature.</li><li>Hiram Monserrate of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/13">13th District</a> in Queens managed to get himself kicked out of the Senate a while ago. Perhaps the Democrats were just looking for an excuse after the leadership struggle I talked about above, but his conviction on misdemeanor assault charges for an incident where he slashed his girlfriend's face and dragged her through a building lobby (<a href="http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Security-Video-Played-in-Monserrate-Assault-Trial-60297527.html">complete with video</a>) pretty much sealed his fate. His seat was won by marriage equality supporter José Peralta.</li><li>George Onorato of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/12">12th District</a> in Queens retired, and his seat was won by marriage equality supporter Michael Gianaris.</li><li>Bill Stachowski of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/58">58th District</a> in Buffalo and to the south was defeated in the primary by marriage equality supporter Timothy Kennedy.</li></ol>So, that puts the eight equality opponents in the Democratic party at one expulsion, one primary loss, one retirement, one general election loss, and one facing federal charges, with three remaining.<br /><br />Of the 24 Democrats that supported marriage equality, five are no longer around. Two of those resulted in no change: Pedro Espada, who was primaried out by the Democratic establishment and replaced with equality supporter Gustavo Rivera, and Eric Schneiderman, who's now the Attorney General, and was replaced by Adriano Espaillat. Then there are the three who lost to Republicans (2010 <i>was</i> a good year for Republicans): a couple Long Islanders, Brian Foley and Craig Johnson lost to Lee Zeldin and Jack Martins, respectively, while in Buffalo Antoine Thompson managed to be too much of a <a href="http://wnymedia.net/buffalopundit/2010/10/shame-on-antoine-thompson-and-the-dscc-sd60/">corrupt hack</a> even for the New York Senate and was replaced by Mark Grisanti. Of the three newcomers, Zeldin is definitely opposed to marriage equality, Martins probably is, but I can't find anything on the record to say so (maybe a constituent could <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/jack-m-martins/contact">contact him and ask</a>), and Mark Grisanti has met with LGBT activists since Lady Gaga <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/when-lady-gaga-knows-your-name/">called him out</a>, but seems to be unwilling to go farther than civil unions (or maybe he <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/mark-grisanti/contact">needs more convincing</a>).<br /><br />Lastly, there are the Republicans who lost. I'm just going to not concern myself with the three that were replaced with other Republicans aside from noting that I can't find any statement from Buffalo-area newcomer Pat Gallivan on the record. He can be <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/pat-gallivan/contact">contacted here</a>. On the plus side, Tom Morahan of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/38">38th District</a> in Rockland and Orange Counties was replaced by equality supporter David Carlucci, and Frank Padavan of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/11">11th District</a> in Queens was replaced by equality supporter Tony Avella.<br /><br />This is getting pretty long, so I'll try to sum it all up quickly. To pass the Senate, we need 32 votes. Of the 24 votes we got last time, all Democrats, 21 are still there or have been replaced with supporters (there are four Democrats who have split off as Independents recently, but that shouldn't affect anything here). Of the eight Democrats who voted against us last time, three have been replaced with supporters, and one is facing federal charges that could see him replaced before his term is up (not to mention that we all know he's gay now, so supporting anti-gay causes isn't going to help him hide that any longer). And of the 30 Republicans that voted against us, two have been replaced with supporters. That still leaves us at 26–36, meaning we've got to get six opponents to flip.<br /><br />This is a tough task, but not impossible. Republican Jim Alesi, of the <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/district/55">55th District</a> in Rochester, <a href="http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/59918/alesi-im-undeclared-on-same-sex-marriage/">is now saying</a> that he was “backed into a corner” the last time (I suppose he'd have voted yes if nobody ever called for a vote) and that “you never know where you can find votes in this town.” If you're a Rochester area person, <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/james-s-alesi/contact">let him know</a> that you want one of those votes to be him. As he hints, and as I've read in several places, there are expected to be a few votes that might come out of the woodwork if the gap gets sufficiently small. In any event, even after the Republican wave of 2010, we are at least two votes closer, and the Democratic caucus (including the four Independents, who were elected as Democrats) has gone from 24–8 to 26–4, increasing pressure on the holdouts there.<br /><br />Another advantage this time around is having a governor who's actually able to help out some. David Paterson's commitment to the cause can't be faulted, but by the time this came to a vote he was pretty much an ineffective laughingstock. This time, we've got Andrew Cuomo, who recently won decisively over crazy person Carl Paladino, and has a good bit of personal popularity. Cuomo recently <a href="http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2011/03/09/gay_city_news/news/doc4d78442820b5e122694578.txt">met with</a> several of the leading gay rights organizations in New York, as well as legislative leaders on the issue, to work out a strategy. And, while personally an opponent, Senate President Dean Skelos, a Long Island Republican, has promised the Log Cabin Republicans that he will bring the measure to a vote (remember, in New York, the Senate President pretty much determines what gets voted on all by himself). He can be <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/dean-g-skelos/contact">contacted here</a> to encourage him to keep that promise.<br /><br />Remember, we can get nowhere without the help of wonderful organizations like the following:<br /><a href="http://www.prideagenda.org/">Empire State Pride Agenda</a><br /><a href="http://www.meny.us/">Marriage Equality New York</a><br /><a href="http://equalitymatters.org/">Equality Matters</a><br /><a href="http://www.hrc.org/ny4marriage/">HRC New York</a>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-6571569797425461582011-03-09T23:25:00.002-05:002011-03-09T23:40:27.565-05:00Write a Dumb Article About Bike Lanes, and the Internet Will Mock You<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMzf-zuaUoSrc0L0Nyivpt0ud2t2aUsgqRkzYz-tvFy80TYkq0-bgRjvqr3UwVqFoeIVoeMkBOj56C3R49QBTzs_UvR11lVyOsE9Gf_muCSXtB0klxd18_htV0V6F1AH0xaPD4OO_fKB8/s1600/13_11_sq.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMzf-zuaUoSrc0L0Nyivpt0ud2t2aUsgqRkzYz-tvFy80TYkq0-bgRjvqr3UwVqFoeIVoeMkBOj56C3R49QBTzs_UvR11lVyOsE9Gf_muCSXtB0klxd18_htV0V6F1AH0xaPD4OO_fKB8/s400/13_11_sq.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5582302394294724050" /></a><br />Over on the <i>New Yorker</i>'s website, John Cassidy wrote a blog post about New York City's bike lanes. Oddly for the <i>New Yorker</i>, he paints the cycling advocates as a cabal of humorless Jacobins in league with the Mayor and his transportation secretary, crushing the freedom of those like himself who drive huge cars. And oddly for an economist, he seems unable to recognize any congestion-related externalities of automobile traffic. So, a number of other bloggers have pointed out various flaws in his piece. And rather than link to the piece in question, I'll just run down the most notable comments (I'm pretty sure you can find a link to Cassidy's post in any of the following).<br />First up, to provide a rather sarcastic bullet-point summary is Aaron Naparstek's “<a href="http://naparstek.com/2011/03/bike-lane-backlash-makes-no-sense/">The New York City Bike Lane Backlash is Completely Irrational</a>.” The meat of Cassidy's argument, such as it is, is probably the part summed up here:<blockquote><ul><li>Now that the city has striped 200 miles of bike lanes on its 15,000+ miles of roadway, we have clearly reached the point of diminishing returns for bikes and bike lanes. As for cars and car lanes — sky’s the limit. As an economist, I see no end to the number of cars and car lanes we can cram in to New York City.</li><li>Every New Yorker should be able to drive his Jaguar into Greenwich Village for dinner, as is my pastime, and find convenient, free parking on a public street near the restaurant.</li></ul></blockquote>In similar style, the New York Times Magazine's Adam Sternbergh runs through the “<a href="http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/i-was-a-teenage-cyclist-or-how-anti-bike-lane-arguments-echo-the-tea-party/">requisite rhetorical tactics</a>” should one wish to write one's own anti-bike lane article, including:<blockquote><b>Oddly self-contradictory declaration of support:</b> “Generally speaking, I don’t have a problem with this movement; indeed, I support it.”<br /><br /><b>Invocation of meddling government apparatchiks:</b> “A classic case of regulatory capture by a small faddish minority.”<br /><br /><b>Invocation of America’s long, sun-dappled love affair with cars:</b> “Since 1989, when I nervously edged out of the Ford showroom on 11th Avenue and 57th Street, the proud leaser of a sporty Thunderbird coupe, I have owned and driven six cars in the city.”</blockquote>Moving towards more serious criticism, we get to Felix Salmon, a prominent blogger on economics for Reuters starting to explain <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/09/john-cassidy-vs-bipeds/">where Cassidy really gets the basics wrong</a> (emphasis mine):<blockquote>And you surely know, even if you’re loathe to admit it, that <b>traffic expands to fill the roads available</b>: if you build more road space, you don’t reduce congestion, you just increase the number of cars. And similarly, if you reduce the amount of road space, you don’t increase congestion so much as you reduce the number of private cars. Which is a feature, not a bug.<br /><br />Cassidy is convinced that the addition of bike lanes has increased the time he spends stuck in traffic, or looking for his beloved free on-street parking.</blockquote>And that's actually a rather subtle point to grasp in actual practice. If the people laying out our roadways had realized many years ago that adding lanes does very little to relieve congestion in urban areas, we could have done things a lot better. The fact is, when Cassidy is sitting in traffic on Third Ave. in Brooklyn looking at a bike lane that could carry some traffic if it were given to cars, he's wrong about the limiting factor involved. There's apparently no shortage of people willing to endure that traffic for whatever reason, and an extra lane would just get filled with more of them, until everyone was stuck in the same traffic.<br /><br />Incidentally, this principle is why the Big Dig hasn't relieved as much congestion as was promised originally, and has probably increased congestion on some of the surface streets. Make it easier to get to the North End, you end up with more cars on its little crowded streets. Not that it hasn't been at all successful, by any means. But that's a whole other subject (and, really, one I'm not at all qualified to speak of).<br /><br />Moving along, I'll note that <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/four-wheels-good-two-legs-bad/">Paul Krugman</a> over at the New York Times echoes Felix Salmon's opinion of Cassidy's “awesomely self-centered rant.”<br /><br />The Washington Post's Ezra Klein takes a <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/love_driving_buy_your_neighbor.html">slightly different approach</a> to pointing out the same thing:<blockquote>There’s no further room for roads in Manhattan or its environs, but given the city’s comfort with tall buildings, there is room for more people. If each and every one of them decides to buy a car, as Cassidy has, the streets will become essentially impassable. The question, for drivers, is one of survival: How do you persuade the maximum number of New Yorkers not to drive?<br /><br />The answer seems obvious: You give them other options.</blockquote>And that's pretty hard to argue with. You simply can't build enough roads for New Yorkers (and everyone else who might be in New York) to drive everywhere they want to go. This is one of the issues that is going to be very important in urban areas all over the US over the next several decades. We are still growing as a country (I think by at least another 40 million in the next fifty years) and becoming more urbanized. Solutions for managing this are going to be hard to come by, and will require work, and trade-offs. Squeezing a couple hundred miles of bike lane into New York City is part of that.<br /><br />Lastly, we come to Ryan Avent writing for <i>The Economist</i>'s “Free Exchange” blog (which is mostly about economics and finance; he has his own blog at “<a href="http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/">The Bellows</a>” where he mostly covers urban issues, and which I highly recommend). Looking at things “from an economic perspective” he finds that Cassidy's article “<a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/03/tragedies_commons">really is a doozy of a misstep</a>” for failing to consider negative externalities in a number of areas:<blockquote>When Mr Cassidy drives, he imposes a small congestion cost on those around him, drivers and cyclists included. Because he and others do not consider this cost, they overuse the roads, creating traffic…<br /><br />Cars also release several harmful pollutants… It would be possible to account for these pollution externalities, to some extent at least, by taxing them. But at the moment, fuel taxes are too low to cover road maintenance, to say nothing of the costs of automobile pollution…<br /><br />To give away valuable parking spaces for free is hugely inefficient. It encourages too many people to drive, and it encourages people to stay in free spots longer than the welfare-maximising amount of time…<br /><br />[I]f drivers paid for all the costs they impose on others, there would be fewer drivers complaining about bike lanes and more people using them.</blockquote>I don't really have much to add at this point that hasn't been covered in all the above links. There's all sorts of issues that touch on various aspects of what I've said here, and I'd like to get a little bit more in depth on them at some point. Non-automobile transportation in major urban areas <i>is</i> a subject near to my heart, after all.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-9920636368754148532011-02-22T03:33:00.003-05:002011-02-22T03:43:01.112-05:00It's Been a While, But Here's A New Self PortraitWhy do I only have the motivation for this sort of thing after 2:00 AM. I haven't been doing much, since my flash has been broken for about a year now. The part that connects it to the camera broke off. But it can still flash if you push the little button on it. It takes some experimenting to work it out, and you have to leave the shutter open long enough that you can hear it click and push the button before it closes. I used a half second, I think.<table style="width:auto;"><tr><td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/dQ54ReCMJ3PUBfb10dA9uGtNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghzvxE3foHhjWFjfSpIENhYYJx8wB_E7JFyyVwBdtXo-46kGd_IOjDwksVn1IZkq-uoHx1RQ3n2ObHSr0QHpzHC-pvPUeHFdi_m7_s14PAGgigGzVAkM_AG2qtXQzPcgXEP5_mG8emaOo/s800/IMG_5472_square_crop.jpg" height="800" width="800" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:11px; text-align:right">From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/jeremy.waterfall/WillTheWorldEndInTheNightTime?authkey=Gv1sRgCM7U-Kq-u-GhFA&feat=embedwebsite">Will the World End in the Night Time?</a></td></tr></table>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-46198999695532023642011-02-21T00:58:00.004-05:002011-02-21T01:49:46.274-05:00I Think Someone Was Lying To William Whyte<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41MWY6DGDNL._SL500_AA300_.gif"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 300px;" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41MWY6DGDNL._SL500_AA300_.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Since I haven't had a chance to check out Edward Glaeser's <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/159420277X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298270383&sr=1-1">Triumph of the City</a></i> yet, I've been satisfying my urge for urbanist reading with William H. Whyte's <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/City-Rediscovering-William-H-Whyte/dp/0385262094">City: Rediscovering the Center</a></i>. This book basically takes the opposite perspective on how cities work: whereas Glaeser looks at the macroeconomic situation of cities in general, Whyte has gone out and filmed countless hours of how people in cities do the simplest things like converse on a sidewalk. Being a bike messenger, I am often in a position to see these things as well, so I find it all rather fascinating, yet familiar. For example, people apparently are more likely to stop have a conversation in the busiest part of the walkway, rather than off to the side. It always seemed that way to me, but I figured that was just when I noticed it the most.<br /><br />I had to laugh at this passage from page 62, though. Keep in mind that this was written in 1988:<blockquote>“A new danger for pedestrians is the rise of the messenger cyclists. Up until about five years ago most of the cyclists one encountered were people on their way to work. The messenger cyclists, however, are animated by money. They get paid for the number of deliveries they can make in a day, and true speed will net them an additional $100 additional a day, for a total take of $250–$300. So they go fast, very fast—thirty to thirty-five miles per hour when possible; they go against traffic and they run red lights. They seem to hate pedestrians; they scowl and curse at them and yell and blow whistles at them to get them out of the way.”</blockquote>Really? $250–$300 a day, in 1988? $150, if you don't go fast? Thirty-five miles per hour? Sounds to me like he's listening to people telling stories. Sure, such things are <i>possible</i>, but certainly not on anything approaching a regular basis.<br /><br />Other than that, though, it's a great book. It's amazing how much getting the little details right or wrong can make a difference in how things work. It's especially poignant for me, because I see so many things all the time that are just done the wrong way. Just little things like a building directory organized by floor number, so you can only find what you're looking for if you already know what floor it's on (77 Franklin St. is a particularly egregious example). It's nice to see someone try to shine light on these sorts of issues. Not that they've gone away in the 22 years since the book came out.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-5292527423008845002011-02-18T23:40:00.002-05:002011-02-18T23:57:47.743-05:00I Think I Mentioned That Edward Glaeser Was Everywhere These DaysAnd here he is on the Daily Show:<br /><div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:374278" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-14-2011/edward-glaeser">The Daily Show</a></b><br/>Tags: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div><br />Not long after his <i>Atlantic</i> article “<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/how-skyscrapers-can-save-the-city/8387/1/">How Skyscrapers Can Save The City</a>.” I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of as many buildings as tall as he's advocating, but it would be nice to move further in that direction.<br /><br />And an <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-02-a-talk-with-edward-glaeser-why-america-needs-to-love-its-cities-">interview with Grist</a> a couple weeks ago, where he fesses up to actually living in the suburbs himself. Kids, private school tuition, the usual excuses. And <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/02/city-limits-a-conversation-with-edward-glaeser/70351/">another interview</a>, this time with the <i>Atlantic</i>.<br /><br />I'll definitely be trying to get my hands on a copy of his new book from the library ASAP (having no money sucks). I keep checking online, but there's never a copy available. Guess I'll just have to keep following the promotional appearances.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-61831032343992241742011-02-12T21:57:00.002-05:002011-02-12T22:20:24.193-05:00Sal Mineo, Murdered 35 Years Ago Today<div><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2001/222/mineosal2.jpg" alt="Sal Mineo" /></div>Such a tragic life, a poor kid in the Bronx who couldn't stay out of trouble, a quick rise to fame, then a has-been in his mid-twenties, broke and trying to get back into the game, and pointlessly murdered at 37. It was his question, in <i>Rebel Without a Cause</i>, asking James Dean if the world would end in the nighttime or daytime, that inspired the title of this blog (the exact wording was from The Smiths' “Stretch Out And Wait”, Morrissey being a James Dean fan, naturally). Really one of the most amazing performances I've ever seen on film, at the young age of 16. He could have been one of the greats, but things just wouldn't work out that way. Also, not at all bad looking:<div><img src="http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/8700000/Sal-Mineo-vintage-beefcake-8731735-345-474.jpg" /></div>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-59430587387486943952011-02-12T20:40:00.002-05:002011-02-12T21:54:24.951-05:00The Scourge of Pointless, Knee-Jerk ContrarianismOK, so a while ago I promised an update on where the fight for marriage equality might suffer setbacks this year. Then I kept waiting to get a handle on what's going on in Wyoming, where they looked to be working towards any combination of: a law banning recognition of out-of-state marriages, a version that would also ban recognition of civil unions, a constitutional amendment doing either, or a law providing for civil unions. It was confusing. I'll try to sort it out at some point.<br /><br />The other places to watch out for are New Hampshire, where the Republicans have a veto-proof majority now, the District of Columbia, where Republicans in Congress might be able to undo what the DC City Council has done, and Iowa, where same-sex marriage is legal, but still rather unpopular. New Hampshire and DC don't seem to be getting much enthusiasm from opponents, but in Iowa, there is a real push to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban same-sex marriage. Luckily, this isn't easy to do, and the Democrats hold the state Senate, where the majority leader, Michael Gronstal, has vowed not to bring the issue to a vote. The Iowa House of Representatives is still trying to do something, though.<br /><br />So, they held hearings on the matter, the only real effect of which was to give a 19 year old Iowan named Zach Wahls a platform for his eloquent speech about being raised by a lesbian couple, the video of which has become a Youtube hit (1.5 million views right now):<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FSQQK2Vuf9Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />This seems to have gotten a very positive response from the various news sites and blogs that I pay attention too. Yeah, I'm sure there's all sorts of stuff out on the “family values” crowd's websites, but that's not anything I give a shit about. Those who disagree with marriage equality, but have much more important concerns aren't going to chime up to talk shit about Zach Wahls. That'd be stupid.<br /><br />But then again, there always seems to be that <i>one</i> guy who just <i>has</i> to disagree to prove how above-it-all he is. In this case, University of Rochester economist Steven Landsburg <a href="http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/02/04/hawkeye-talk/">decided to fill the role</a>:<br /><blockquote>“In a video that’s begun to go viral, University of Iowa engineering student Zach Wahls attempts to refute this notion without offering a shred of evidence beyond a single cherry-picked case (his own) to prove that children of gay parents sometimes turn out just fine… What’s particularly disturbing to me is all the chatter about how eloquent this kid is, as if eloquence in the service of intellectual misdirection were somehow something to be admired.”</blockquote>Not being a reader of Prof. Landsburg's, I only found out about this from Will Wilkinson at the <i>Economist's</i> “Democracy in America” blog, where he <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/rhetoric_and_rationality">neatly eviscerated</a> Prof. Landsburg's argument. I highly recommend Will Wilkinson (the <i>Economist</i> only identifies its bloggers by initials, but it's not too hard to figure out from other places who W.W. is); he's enough of a libertarian to frustrate me at times, and enough of a liberal to get tossed out of the Cato Institute, which seems to be politically where my blog is focusing its commentary. Expect to see me quote him from time to time.<br /><br />At the end, he sums up a frustration of mine:<blockquote>“So what gives? My guess is that, like a number of right-leaning economists, Mr Landsburg has a regrettable tendency toward tone-deaf, context-dropping, contrarian provocation based on an unexamined assumption that this is what it means to be bravely rational. It is not. In any case, I think we can all agree that, other things equal, intellectual misdirection is not ‘something to be admired’.”</blockquote>This does seem to be something of an annoying strain that I've noticed especially in otherwise top-notch right-of-center economics writing. The guys behind <i>Freakonomics</i>, Levitt and Dubner, seem to have made their whole career off of examples of “counterintuitive” economic phenomena, even when it requires being sloppy to get there. I think there's definitely something to conservative or libertarian criticisms of the side-effects of government policy, but one can go too far in that line of thinking as well. Kudos to Will Wilkinson for calling that sort of thing out.<br /><br />As for the rest of us, I suppose we can just enjoy seeing Zach Wahls speak passionately about his experiences without trying to judge him on whether his speech was a complete logical refutation of all arguments that same-sex parents are inferior. Certainly, the data exist to refute those arguments as well, and I'm sure various legislatures weighing the issue have considered expert testimony on the matter. But those videos aren't going to have the same appeal as this one.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-45172889515368866642011-02-04T00:13:00.004-05:002011-02-04T09:14:06.996-05:00Reason Magazine Cheers On Jerry Brown<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/22/redevelopers-to-jerry-brown-le"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 275px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnietW64TZEeG-vRTRkCX_DqL8oM1e7SggPBGaeA4qBdfXQWhoAUZ-O1SXXk16F_kPtMjMvuHb4rzap8ulLYAmwaO0qdiRVlRRTT_PlH4nvvj0VD_TCmKOiylLXFyN1tDAxFcqT1_MoHQ/s320/redevelopers+to+jerry" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5569698736919872786" /></a><div style="text-align: center;"><i>“There can be no doubt that a good many, at least, of the problems with which the modern town planner is concerned are genuine problems with which governments or local authorities are bound to concern themselves. Unless we can provide some guidance in fields like this about what are legitimate or necessary government activities and what are its limits, we must not complain if our views are not taken seriously when we oppose other kinds of less justified ‘planning.’”</i></div><div style="text-align: center;">–F. A. Hayek</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Apparently, I seem to like posting stuff with a basic theme of libertarian critiques of urban planning issues. I'm decidedly more of a liberal than a libertarian, myself, but I think that the history of failed “urban renewal” schemes in the US provides many lessons about the limits of central planning to solve the problems of large cities. And any focus on the issues affecting our great metropolises coming from a libertarian direction is a pleasant surprise to hear. So often, it seems that libertarian ideas are created around some ideal world where people live in freedom and self-sufficiency by themselves with their guns and SUVs. The <a href="http://timothyblee.com/2011/02/01/f-a-hayek-liberal/">article by Tim Lee</a> that I grabbed the Hayek quote above from offers a more cogent critique of modern libertarianism along those lines. But that's not what I want to focus on here.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/22/redevelopers-to-jerry-brown-le">This article on Reason.com</a>, cheering on California governor Jerry Brown in his quest to take on the state's bloated redevelopment agencies is the sort of thing I like to see. I don't know much about California, but I've been known to try to keep up on what the Boston Redevelopment Authority does. And much of it is the sort of necessary upgrades to the city's infrastructure that are always going to happen. (Also, their <a href="http://www.mapjunction.com/bra/">Boston Atlas</a> is amazing if you love maps as much as I do, and the receptionist is always nice when I deliver stuff there.) But I've never liked the basic setup of the city basically putting its planning and development functions in the hands of a semi-autonomous, barely accountable agency. The whole way it's structured seems to invite collusion between the Authority and large developers, and hooking up those with the right connections with sweetheart deals on whatever property the city can grab via eminent domain (all given Supreme Court blessing in <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London">Kelo v. City of New London</a></i>).</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So I can heartily join in with <i>Reason</i> in hoping Jerry Brown is successful in taking on the redevelopment agencies. And, in the broader scheme of things, I hope that perhaps there's a way to find some common ground between liberals and libertarians interested in urban issues to dislodge the entrenched interests from the positions of power they command within our institutions of civic governance. </div>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-1824741879564447072011-01-23T22:12:00.002-05:002011-02-21T02:08:03.361-05:00What's in Store for Marriage Equality in 2011, Part 1<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/500px-Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 500px; height: 309px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/500px-Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />As I'm sure everyone noticed, the 2010 elections were a massive disaster for the Democratic Party, and something of a victory for the far-right wing of the Republican Party. With the Republicans in the majority in the House of Representatives, there's very little chance for any movement on even the most incremental advances in gay rights before the 2012 elections. At the state level, however, the picture actually looks surprisingly good for supporters of marriage equality. While the elections went badly in general for the more supportive candidates, there were a few important victories that should make a real difference over the coming year or two.<br /><br />The map above shows where we stand right now as far as marriage laws go. The dark blue states already have full equality, lighter blues are for civil unions and domestic partnerships. Reds are for same-sex marriage prohibitions. Some states have banned marriage yet allow for lesser options. Let's see if we can get an idea of what the map will look like a year from now.<br /><br />Probably the most positive news is that Rhode Island is very likely to pass a marriage equality bill this year. Former Governor Donald Carcieri, an opponent of gay rights, has been replaced by the Independent (former Republican) Lincoln Chafee. Chafee <a href="http://www.towleroad.com/2011/01/chafee.html">called on the state legislature</a> to pass a marriage equality bill in his inaugural address this year, and it seems to be likely to pass. While not a sure predictor of support for gay rights, the Democrats have a 65–10 majority in the House and a 29–8 (and 1 Independent) majority in the Senate, which ought to be a decent sized cushion against the possibility of anti-equality Democrats.<br /><br />The next likeliest state to move forward on marriage equality is Maryland. Already, the state recognizes out-of-state marriages, as well as providing for domestic partnerships itself. It isn't certain whether the votes exist for full equality, although it seems likely, with a supermajority of Democrats in both houses of the legislature. The two seats the Democrats picked up in the Senate are <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/12/maryland.same.sex.marriage/">thought to seal the deal</a>. If the votes aren't there, the Republican Minority Leader has also proposed a civil unions bill (which doesn't have the support of his caucus, and he stepped down as Minority Leader afterwards), so at least one of the two is very likely to pass. Governor Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, is a supporter of marriage equality and would sign a bill if it were to pass the legislature.<br /><br />New York is an interesting and complicated case, as the Republicans have regained control of the state Senate, but at the same time the situation for marriage equality has likely improved somewhat. Back in 2009, the Senate rejected a bill to allow same-sex marriage in New York, by a vote of 38–24. At the time, the Democrats held a small majority of seats, but 8 Democrats joined all Republicans in opposing the bill. After the 2010 elections, the Republicans hold a small majority, but, by my count, supporters have gained two votes. Andrew Cuomo has replaced David Patterson as governor, and while both are strong supporters of marriage equality, Cuomo enjoys high favorability ratings and would be much more effective champion of a bill. New York state politics is weird (and mostly not in a good way), but I think I've got a decent grasp of the situation, and will try to write it up in its own post where I can cover the details a bit better.<br /><br />On the civil unions front, Hawaii seems in as good a situation legislatively now as it did last year when the legislature passed a civil unions bill. This time around, however, the governor is Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, who <a href="http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=112503">has promised to sign</a> such a bill, rather than Laura Lingle, a Republican, who vetoed it last time. As far as I know there aren't any plans to try for full marriage equality.<br /><br />Even ahead of Hawaii is Illinois. Acting Governor Pat Quinn, who took over after Rod Blagojevich was impeached, narrowly won reelection in November. He <a href="http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2011/01/23/gay_city_news/news_in_brief/today/doc4d3c9970a4d05177004216.txt">will sign a sign a bill</a> providing for civil unions in a ceremony in Chicago on January 31st. Quinn is a supporter of full equality, but a bill to that effect has never made it out of committee. The Democrats have majorities of 64–54 in the House of Representatives and 35–24 in the Senate currently, although it's entirely unclear (to me, at least) where they stand on marriage equality.<br /><br />That's all I can really think of for good news that's likely to happen this year from state legislatures. Given the Republican gains in the last election, and especially given the gains made by far-right extremists in this country, I think it's impressive that we can still gain ground on this issue this year. Seriously, the Republican Party of 2010 had re-criminalization of sodomy as part of its platform in at least Texas and Montana, and lost all three openly gay state legislators out of the 4,000 it has countrywide, the first time in years it's been down to zero. Yet progress manages to push on despite them. I'll get to where our current gains may be in danger in Part 2, and maybe get a Part 3 where I can discuss what's currently working through the court system, and what we might see this year.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-73012358535022236392011-01-17T20:34:00.003-05:002011-01-17T21:50:39.828-05:00Richard Daley, Sun King Mayor of ChicagoLooks like I've got a streak of posts on urban issues going here. I do have other interests that I intend to get to as well. In any event, this article on the Urbanophile blog was rather fascinating to me:<p><a href="http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/01/16/chicago-the-cost-of-clout/"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3MARr-FervzGLz5yR_EI0PlGbHH0tK2mTneiSL2pMiM_Z5rXaKWQJ7SoOQCeDgBM3yD5DYqbeB1y38R8esizMlzAHLbuPWYxU8YU7Hd1hZ4-_7fHP4B1jm42Td1JxQf8iTluAP6F043A/s320/cost_of_clout" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 134px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5563334622094466386" /></a></p><br />It's a look at how the power to get things done in Chicago is concentrated in a ‘nexus’ of entrenched interests, and the ramifications that this has for the city. Often referred to as the ‘Chicago Way,’ the city has established itself during the administration Mayor Daley (the son, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Daley">Richard M. Daley</a>, who has been mayor since 1989, not his father <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Daley">Richard J. Daley</a>, mayor from 1955–1976) as a city that Gets Things Done. On the other hand, its economic growth has been stagnant for years, even as the city's prestige has increased.<br /><br />Much of the article describes the totality with which the Chicago Way permeates every aspect of doing business of any sort in the city: “I believe the Nexus resulted from the culture of clout combined with the fact that, with the exception of the interregnum between Daley <span style="font-style:italic;">pere</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">fils</span>, power has been centralized on the 5th floor of city hall for decades. The Nexus may have come into being around the mayor, but now it has become a feature of civic life, one that practically longs for what Greg Hinz has labeled a ‘Big Daddy’ style leader to sustain the system.”<br /><br />This stands in contrast to many of the problems New York City has had over its history, which often involved a mayor unable to deal with with competing entrenched interests. For many years, for example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses">Robert Moses</a> built his own empire of sorts through controlling various city and state agencies, accumulating more power than most of the mayors he theoretically served under. (Robert Caro's book <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Robert-Moses-Fall/dp/0394720245">The Power Broker</a></span> is a highly recommended read on all of this.) It would be a fascinating study to see how power is accumulated and used differently in different major cities.<br /><br />The one quote in the Urbanophile article that struck me was in this comparison: “The ultimate dream of the clout seeker is a centralized unitary state like Louis XIV’s France. In Chicago, we’ve come amazingly close to achieving it. It’s not that there’s no conflict, but it is all of the palace intrigue variety, not true conflicts between rival power centers.” In a way, I think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France">Louis XIV</a> is the right example here. While much is made of the opulence of Versailles and the excesses of the nobility, what gets rather less attention is the fact that Louis XIV managed to set everything up that way to consolidate his own power.<br /><br />I'm far from an expert on France during the 72 year reign of the Sun King, but it was a similar story of putting himself in the center, and slowly working to keep all conflict between others for his approval. The French nobility were kept in perpetual competition with each other, spending vast sums just to maintain the lifestyle expected of them at the palace. And Versailles itself was designed to literally put Louis at the center, with the nobility arranged outward from him, vying against each other for the attention of the king. Mayor Daley might not have that sort of absolute power, but it does seem the model.<br /><br />And like modern day Chicago, France in the early 18th Century, has been able to accomplish things that would have been impossible without the ability of its leader to keep everyone in line. On the other hand, France's great rival at the time, Great Britain, where during the long reign of Louis XIV, one king was beheaded and another fled the country, was able to innovate much better, despite a much smaller supply of people and natural resources. So, whoever wins the upcoming election, now that Daley's retiring, has his or her work cut out. I'm ever the optimist about such things.<br /><br />And, in case you're wondering, I'm not going to say anything right now about our own mayor-for-life situation here in Boston.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-61515550722216277922011-01-10T20:08:00.002-05:002011-01-10T20:39:14.975-05:00Trailer for Upcoming Documentary on Pruitt-Igoe Housing ProjectThe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe">Pruitt-Igoe</a> was a notorious housing project built in the mid-50s in St. Louis that came to represent everything wrong with mid-20 Century urban renewal, and even everything wrong with the modern architecture of the time. It was demolished by the federal government in the mid-70s (the demolition <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRmrxYvm7iY&feature=related">is featured</a> in the movie <span style="font-style:italic;">Koyaanisqatsi</span>). In any event, this documentary looks really interesting. I'm not sure what the "myth" they're referring to is, though. Probably the tendency among some critics to blame Pruitt-Igoe's problems solely on the architecture of the place, if I had to guess. That part does get overstated a lot.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/18356414" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/18356414">Trailer – The Pruitt-Igoe Myth: an Urban History</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user4817953">the Pruitt-Igoe Myth</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-65644169346634115002011-01-10T00:20:00.002-05:002011-01-10T00:25:14.342-05:00Amazing Fact of the DayAll those bike lanes they've added all over the place in New York City (and if you aren't familiar, they've popped up <i>everywhere</i>)? Apparently, the total cost has been only $8.8 million, of which the city itself only paid for about $2 million. (via <a href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/12/09/quick-hits-from-todays-city-council-hearing-on-bike-policy/">Streetsblog</a>):<blockquote>“One question about the cost of building bike lanes yielded an answer that will be of particular interest to Streetsblog readers. All of the current DOT’s bike projects combined have cost a total of $8.8 million, including analysis, design, outreach, and construction, Sadik-Khan said. When you factor in the 80 percent federal match, the city has spent less than $2 million from its own coffers on the major expansions to the bike network we’ve seen the last few years."</blockquote>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-8195760000099623522011-01-08T00:53:00.002-05:002011-01-08T01:39:50.553-05:00Our Cities Are The Engines That Will Propel RecoveryHarvard economics professor and author Edward Glaeser had an article in the Boston Globe last week about the <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/12/30/americas_revival_begins_in_its_cities/">economic importance</a> of cities. This has long been a topic that's interested me. Last year, I finally got around to reading Jane Jacobs' <i>Cities and the Wealth of Nations</i>, which makes similar arguments to Glaeser's article. The main thrust of the book is that cities are the places where new ideas are made, and where the sustained economic growth of a nation occurs. It suffers for Jacobs never having been a trained economist, and generally seems overly pessimistic to me. Still, a worthwhile read for the ideas it brings up.<br /><br />Glaeser brings these ideas to bear on our current situation:<blockquote>“DURING ECONOMIC downturns, we begin to fear that we are entering a permanent period of decline. But we can avoid that depressing prospect if we recognize that a revival will not come from federal spending or another building boom. Reinvention requires a new wave of innovation and entrepreneurship, which can emerge from our dense metropolitan areas and their skilled residents. America must stop treating its cities as ugly stepchildren, and should instead cherish them as the engines that power our economy.<br /><br />America’s 12 largest metropolitan areas collectively produced 37 percent of the country’s output in 2008, the last year with available data. Per capita productivity was particularly high in large, skilled areas such as Boston, where output per person was 39 percent higher than the nation’s metropolitan average. New York and San Francisco enjoy similar per capita productivity advantages. Boston also seems to be moving past the current recession, with an unemployment rate well below the national average of 9.8 percent.”</blockquote>Interestingly, though, these cities where productivity per capita is highest are losing people relative to the Sunbelt area, where per capita productivity is much lower. In a post on the New York Times' Economix blog, Edward Glaeser (who apparently likes to spread his ideas around*) <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/behind-the-population-shift/">blames this on housing regulations</a>. I'm not sure I'd single it out as the primary cause, but it would be nice to see cities like Boston take a more laissez-faire attitude toward building and zoning regulations. Which was the primary lesson I took from Jane Jacobs' masterwork, <i>The Death and Life of Great American Cities</i>, whereas the "New Urbanist" movement seems to have decided to ignore the process and create regulations to achieve a result that looks the same. But that's a rant for another day.<br /><br />*Actually, I'm guessing it's because he's got a book, <i>The Triumph of the City</i>, coming out.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-56729844721314253742011-01-07T01:00:00.002-05:002011-01-07T01:33:32.403-05:00Things I Didn't Realize Existed: A Tory AnarchistOver at <a href="http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/">The League of Ordinary Gentlemen</a>, whose bloggers seem to be all be libertarians of some sort or another, E.D. Kain has a fascinating interview with Daniel McCarthy, who has a blog at The American Conservative magazine's webpage called <a href="http://www.amconmag.com/mccarthy/">Tory Anarchist</a>. He tries to explain what this label means in terms of what it's not: <blockquote>“It’s very contradictory, but they’re two dispositions that aren’t liberalism…<br /><br />Tory anarchism isn’t really an idea at all, just a intuition, but it’s meant to hint that tradition and authority are different from state power, and being right-wing doesn’t have to mean — and shouldn’t mean — being pious and meddlesome. It’s liberalism that’s damn near synonymous with the worst kind of piety and meddling.</blockquote>Now, certainly, this is not exactly a philosophy that particularly appeals to me, but the whole discussion is very interesting. There's a bit of discussion of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke">Edmund Burke</a>, often described as the father of conservatism. I've been meaning to get around to reading up on Burke's ideas. I've got a late nineteenth century copy of <i>Letter to a Noble Lord</i> lying around here somewhere. In the interview, Kain and McCarthy mostly discuss <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Vindication_of_Natural_Society"><i>Vindication</i></a>, though, which I am thoroughly unfamiliar with.<br /><br />They gloss over a number of different political philosophers in the discussion, which does get a good bit beyond my understanding of such things. I can't really even figure out whether they're praising or criticizing Murray Rothbard, who I understand to be an anarcho-capitalist. So I can't quite make out what differences there might be between anarcho-capitalism (which I was into for a bit many years ago) and Tory anarchism.<br /><br />I'll give Daniel McCarthy the last word here. As much as I doubt Tory anarchism is a great idea, I do like to see ideas presented this honestly and intelligently.<blockquote>“[T]he way to bring about economic decentralization is through political decentralization; otherwise you’re just going to have some D.C. or Wall Street mastermind’s grand plan for what economic pluralism should look like. Politics and economics are tangential categories, and each can have a destructive influence on the other. I suppose what I would argue for as a big picture is to reduce the influence of concentrated economic and political power and thereby increase the relative sway of cultural, non-utilitarian, and non-coercive institutions. Ultimately, I’m enough of a free marketeer that I think much freer markets are compatible with a much richer culture, but even apart from the way I’d like things to work out, simply getting some variety back into America’s political economy — or political economies — would be a great thing.”</blockquote>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-73750953392169992252011-01-06T01:50:00.002-05:002011-01-06T01:59:50.983-05:00New Year's Resolutions, They Seem To Be The Same Every YearIt seems like it's always the same list. This is the year I'll get a better job. Or at least take some sort of vacation. How hard could it be to get my beautiful Serotta back in rideable condition given a twelve month timeframe? Etc.<br /><br />Well, actually posting stuff on this here blog thing I've got is one of them. Activity seems to peak in early January, then I get distracted with other stuff. What can I say, I'm lazy. Anyways, I figure I can use the space to resurrect something along the lines of the "Link of the Day" thing I had going on Facebook. And to show off pictures I take.<br /><br />Taking pictures more is another perpetual New Year's resolution of mine.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-68681312720791681392010-08-22T02:54:00.002-04:002010-08-22T03:16:47.632-04:00Aaaaaand... A Few More Before I Go To BedOK, so here's that first picture from the last batch again, but hopefully I've cut most of the noise out this time.<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/GmGzOjO7mCuUQh_-v4qekGtNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM8-hL67IcauQqnfOB42wpGc4jSBkZYYSa41BPZCUQ8TRD3LnKsiv9l5wqqGIxNEHqwGuWXNO7YEssL4G_3Y2W45y5X7uLO19-zdnepW43JUwGGeOvllR-M_oa6yLSGjtYf8p4Wu-qMQM/s800/IMG_4952_sm.jpg" /></a><br /><br />And here's Paul. He's the drummer for the Pink Parts, in case you aren't familiar. I might have oversharpened this to some extent, but I think it's still fine. Gotta show off that shallow depth of field.<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/rwn4E68hn0pP1OJkbzor2WtNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhhfm03h6kFP-pqTVrs_sEoX-FYoW04JvL-dcT_a07paZCbtH0BogtdYx6yWh9mGwyszY0ZFavcM4wFE_www60pPQprkr8bnbnlGxOhzQheHwmAx2XG2C5PyIxWg88VTw1B8FiOkd2wUU/s800/IMG_4953_sm.jpg" /></a><br /><br />Due to constraints of venue layout and fixed focal length of 50mm on a cropped sensor, I don't think I was ever able to get an entire band in one shot. This one has both Paul and Meredith in it, though. I think I've got a shot or two of just Paul that'll be in a future post.<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/FSpOXlRbrDrX5H7MU3rqN2tNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR3lGSExWy3qaTZT1tVRHnNDTCKdkYa6HMKjTB5A8MgOereGSc_mFeX5jHpXMGYBDtY88KFGciMWnEYVgZkFiD-rTezpSKAh8tTopJ718ailajuigt_qysQ672kNQEUr196TcycUnVFfk/s800/IMG_4983_sm.jpg" /></a><br /><br />Finally getting around to a Brendan shot. A bunch of the shots I've got from this night were at a 45 degree angle or something, and look totally amateurish in the cold, hard light of day. I'm sure there's more that's salvageable, though.<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/parCsdeXgJ8wolwmQfbkM2tNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMtKIvo9l-Sof-EaKw9Tfa4fSVLPVmxd9UwWZjYTG5upm-utpNUQUzmXD2R8Nbu5RQCEV5GxhudgPoxt1OJ-SQKaVVUzTrc-QYGA4kANpZuwoHCjQmx1ZzXn1rD19bmgOVRhFefZ1LrRo/s800/IMG_4990_sm.jpg" /></a>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-88734088401010515022010-08-21T22:46:00.002-04:002010-08-22T03:16:47.633-04:00Pictures From All Asia, 8/5/10 (First Batch)By my standards, this is really quick to get around to post processing. It hasn't even been three weeks yet. Maybe I'll get these done before the next Pink Parts show.<br /><br />Anyways, let's start off with Maniac and Meredith. They look great in this picture. I tried to do what I could about the noise, but this was all at ISO 3200, which is the upper limit of what my camera can do. If I were a rich man, I'd get fancy noise reduction software, and a computer fast enough to run it on, and a million other things, like a decent meal now and then. But I digress. I do that sometimes.<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/qpg2V8VjXRO5NpMqp_L0X2tNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxAzV0a7-6yzclfmJ06g7fZHp0dFkBf_q4SDaM1y8p-kdOODvhad5x3PDj4u12B5xdiiSrkGNYx2fYkVB4LzIzkj0Je2XfKKTgXrVTd0LY9tqodrxHmcaPWUz_uiVxA6069pnyBvauFic/s800/IMG_4952.jpg" /></a><br /><br />Next up is an extreme close-up of Ben. The noise is less obvious in this one. Maybe I should try resizing these down to this size before uploading, rather than letting Picasa's uploader handle that part. Perhaps I'll have better luck uploading to Flickr. So many things to worry about.<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/5TbofoP3AqDQoRxtCFlB0mtNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7ze238IyZCzXFh7mxkQ-TgelghvEsRipW5VKNK49Hbew-F9Us03uFy_EtiVFJuJBJ9rrgp3K_W87XnuiuTvj1wlHd76NagJ8EWnCUzM1WtvbqhuD1D-uyEY2lFEHvUvJ68cj366i_DsY/s800/IMG_4975.jpg" /></a><br /><br />Now we've got Ben and Steve sharing a scorpion bowl. Aren't they such an adorable couple? It was at this point in post-processing that I first discovered that the <a href="http://www.gimp.org">GIMP</a> has the ability to imitate various black and white films. I'm a fan of Kodak Tri-X, though not really for any particularly good reason, so I chose that. Much better at hiding all that ISO noise.<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HsPlIfWWpJvFyG-co70KumtNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtssi0jh3ExdaK42pBfOpG7MDenpdDYSEDGtyaezRQ-TypPf-ULQC8ggjtx5nVbkPct-U8MxyzFEwjPROgOwGxRS5KMjsKg4RN3bVHE3RkK-Z3Ntij8NxW-J9UguYMqJAAL8JO_ausf-Y/s800/IMG_4994.jpg" /></a><br /><br />Oh, and there were also bands playing. This is the lovely Meredith, of the Pink Parts. Having photographed these guys before, I've found that the best strategy is to take lots of pictures of Meredith, as she's hard to capture. Maybe one shot in ten I can get to work out well. I think one's a keeper. One nice thing about shooting with no flash is that you can get that cool motion blur on her right hand, really showing off the action. The disadvantage, of course is being pretty much stuck at f/1.4 and ISO 3200, so there's that noise I keep bitching about.<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7f9sbPsV7gnljY3s3UdJT2tNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU_Q-pucRP8T8N3iunxaIHgRRYFlRNc0jQFV8WJ3sAAu6jQxp19pmgsCxl8g6FPAwVRuL76FAc9Yz6uickSVh0nf6BAJCOke-f2v2Ud8cJh5j0chrNc9vxWGOTaLmHRjFs9rggEtqZKU8/s800/IMG_5028.jpg" /></a><br /><br />And another one of Meredith. Also another one in simulated Tri-X. Probably not the most flattering facial expression (sorry Meredith), but I think it was the only one with that sweet fist pump.<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/imtckld7xu3EJvPC9gByg2tNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjUpyEjXNDzFlWDvi1Z8Dy1bcVM2fMLX47QF9LbSmaq3vwLbPafRBI8JcKlKZbB92eaG_neNmIpITdIRiqkJnHP2vNNiwzibKp59Cp3LNxPEW2fNHL8kXaxLK8Oc3e9MjxH3KiXtDWxtU/s800/IMG_5035.jpg" /></a><br /><br />And lastly (for tonight), here's Tara blowing me a kiss. I think at this point, it was totally too dim for autofocus to work, so I was stuck focusing manually, which is a pain up close at f/1.4. This took a few attempts to get in focus, then I decided I liked this one better than the one that was in focus. It's got a certain feel to it, ya know? Used the Tri-X simulation again, then added a bit of the color back in. I think that was the right call for this image.<br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Oj6Ln8tTtkWJaWQfwnf13WtNXvyBPVRWkbM-ExkgDWs?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5V1CobC0Tu-i-TGi73H2UVKyl9surAQsSv4D-cVzMPx5Y9FOBEZRmDL1qBPQZw4qbfdzjcUGTDB3QT1ioCvEexX3nhdXdJWzEUuFau6jIsTpQGnQTvA47RFZInwuD4lFiDO3Gtym2f80/s800/IMG_5043.jpg" /></a><br /><br />OK. That's it for now. My computer's old and slow, making the post-processing more of an annoying time-consuming pain in the arse than it should be. I promise to fight my way through more pictures soon. Still got two thirds of the Pink Parts that haven't even made an appearance. And whichever of Brian's bands it was that played after them. And some other stuff.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-55027327195703058312010-03-02T02:07:00.004-05:002010-03-02T02:13:07.448-05:00You're Friends With the Enemy of My Friends, or Something<p>I'm always confused at the way that life refuses to follow rules of logic. If someone is the enemy of my friend, they ought to be my enemy, I would think. And two people who are friends of mine ought to get along, just by logical necessity.<br><br />Alas, the commutative and associative properties that are so basic to mathematics are completely foreign to the workings of actual relationships between actual human beings. I think I'm the sort of person whose intuition gives him a good understanding of these sorts of mathematical principles, and much less understanding of human behavior.<br><br />Really, though, as much as it's simply beyond comprehension to me, I do love the illogical nature of pretty much all interpersonal interaction. On the other hand, I've never really felt at home with it at all. And by "it", I mean pretty much everything about the way normal people (or even the not-quite-so-normal people who make up most of my acquaintances) interact with each other.<br><br />I've often thought to myself that the way I deal with meeting new people is most similar to Jane Goodall meeting new chimps (or was it gorillas; for once I'm not going to look it up, just mentally substitute the correct non-human primate if it bothers you). First, I hang out in the periphery, quietly observing and hoping people get used to me being around. Then I slowly start picking up on the way socializing works, and slowly try to work my way into things.<br><br />Well, this actually turned out to be more personal than I intended. But it kind of felt good, so maybe I'll do more. Goodnight for now, though.</p>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-8963252760071087562010-01-18T19:29:00.002-05:002010-01-19T02:54:05.176-05:00Notice the Fancy New Fonts?After a bit of research into the matter last night (really, early this morning), I found that kernest.com offers many free fonts available for web use. And one of them is a version of my personal favorite for text, Goudy Old Style. It's not as nice as some versions out there, noticeably lacking the graceful curve along the base of the capital E and L, and the well-defined diamond shape of the dot on the i and j, as well as the separate Goudy Old Style Bold.<br /><br />But it's quite nice for free, and does include Goudy Old Style Italic, not just an oblique version of the regular. I'm thinking of finding something different to use for the headlines, but that'll be a bit later. Anyways, I've put a colophon over at the right as a permanent note on such matters, for those who might also be typography geeks like me.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-21606330224042194602010-01-18T16:48:00.025-05:002010-01-19T02:52:43.544-05:00Must Read Article on the US Torture Program at Guantanamo<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Horton_%28lawyer%29">Scott Horton</a> over at <span style="font-style: italic;">Harper's Magazine</span>, which I highly recommend in general, has been following the story of our country's torture of terror suspects (perhaps, given the flimsy evidence often required, I should render that with scare quotes: “suspects”) for quite some time. You can look through <a href="http://www.harpers.org/subjects/NoComment">his blog</a> at Harper's online for several previous stories on the matter, as well as various other <a href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/hbc-90004812">interesting</a> <a href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/11/hbc-90006150">stuff</a>. As far as I can tell, he's pretty much the only journalist seriously investigating just what the hell our country is doing when it comes to torture.<br /><br />Forthcoming in the March issue of <span style="font-style: italic;">Harper's</span> is a <a href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368">new article</a> on one of the most deeply troubling incidents, even by the hideous standards of the US torture program. This is the article I'll be quoting from, unless otherwise noted. The story starts back in 2006, when Salah Ahmed Al-Salami, Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi, and Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani (these names are also rendered in other ways, due to differences between Arabic naming customs and our own; I'll try to be consistent) were “discovered” dead in their cells, shortly after midnight on June 10th. The official story goes something like this:<br /><blockquote>According to the NCIS, each prisoner had fashioned a noose from torn sheets and T-shirts and tied it to the top of his cell’s eight-foot-high steel-mesh wall. Each prisoner was able somehow to bind his own hands, and, in at least one case, his own feet, then stuff more rags deep down into his own throat. We are then asked to believe that each prisoner, even as he was choking on those rags, climbed up on his washbasin, slipped his head through the noose, tightened it, and leapt from the washbasin to hang until he asphyxiated. The NCIS report also proposes that the three prisoners, who were held in non-adjoining cells, carried out each of these actions almost simultaneously.<br /></blockquote>(The NCIS is the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, who have primary jurisdiction over investigating crimes at Guantanamo. Cynics may recognize a familiarity between their handiwork above and their “investigation” into the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion">USS Iowa turret explosion</a> in 1989.)<br /><br />Even that much is only known because Seton Hall University Law School students and staff managed to piece together an account from “1,700 pages of documents so heavily redacted as to be nearly incomprehensible,” and that the NCIS refused to disclose initially. The <a href="http://law.shu.edu/about/news_events/releases.cfm?id=79165">Seton Hall report</a>, in its own words, “examines the investigation, not to determine what happened that night, but rather to assess why an investigation into three deaths could have failed to address significant issues.” The report itself is one in a <a href="http://law.shu.edu/ProgramsCenters/PublicIntGovServ/policyresearch/Guantanamo-Reports.cfm">series of reports</a>, “analyzing government data to illuminate the interrogations and intelligence practices of the United States” by Seton Hall, including a previous one on the three “suicides” in question.<br /><br />The Seton Hall report sums up the obvious discrepancies in the NCIS account thus:<br /><blockquote>The original military press releases did not report that the detainees had been dead for more than two hours when they were discovered, nor that rigor mortis had set in by the time of discovery.<br /><br />There is no explanation of how three bodies could have hung in cells for at least two hours while the cells were under constant supervision, both by video camera and by guards continually walking the corridors guarding only 28 detainees.<br /><br />There is no explanation of how each of the detainees, much less all three, could have done the following: braided a noose by tearing up his sheets and/or clothing, made a mannequin of himself so it would appear to the guards he was asleep in his cell, hung sheets to block vision into the cell—a violation of Standard Operating Procedures, tied his feet together, tied his hands together, hung the noose from the metal mesh of ii the cell wall and/or ceiling, climbed up on to the sink, put the noose around his neck and released his weight to result in death by strangulation, hanged until dead and hung for at least two hours completely unnoticed by guards.<br /><br />There is no indication that the medics observed anything unusual on the cell block at the time that the detainees were hanging dead in their cells.<br /><br />The initial military press releases did not report that, when the detainees‘ bodies arrived at the clinic, it was determined that each had a rag obstructing his throat.<br /><br />There is no explanation of how the supposed acts of “asymmetrical warfare” could have been coordinated by the three detainees, who had been on the same cell block fewer than 72 hours with occupied and unoccupied cells between them and under constant supervision.<br /><br />There is no explanation of why the Alpha Block guards were advised that they were suspected of making false statements or failing to obey direct orders.<br /><br />There is no explanation of why the guards were ordered not to provide sworn statements about what happened that night.<br /><br />There is no explanation of why the government seemed to be unable to determine which guards were on duty that night in Alpha Block.<br /><br />There is no explanation of why the guards who brought the bodies to the medics did not tell the medics what had happened to cause the deaths and why the medics never asked how the deaths had occurred.<br /><br />There is no explanation of why no one was disciplined for acts or failures to act that night.<br /><br />There is no explanation of why the guards on duty in the cell block were not systematically interviewed about the events of the night; why the medics who visited the cell block before the hangings were not interviewed; or why the tower guards, who had the responsibility and ability to observe all activity in the camp, were not interviewed.</blockquote><br />And they pretty much leave things there, their stated purpose only being to examine the government's own reports, and not to investigate what might have actually happened. To get to that part of the story, let's turn our attention back to Scott Horton and the <span style="font-style: italic;">Harper's</span> article. He reports that “four members of the Military Intelligence unit assigned to guard Camp Delta, including a decorated non-commissioned Army officer who was on duty as sergeant of the guard the night of June 9–10, have furnished an account dramatically at odds with the NCIS report—a report for which they were neither interviewed nor approached.”<br /><br />The account that emerges seems to fit better in stories from behind the Iron Curtain back in the time of the Cold War. The Guantanamo prisoners are held in a collection of smaller camps collectively referred to as Camp Delta. (<a href="http://www.springercartographics.com/camp-delta-guantanamo-bay-map/">This</a> is a more detailed map than the one in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Harper's</span> article, and the terminology seems to vary as to what's meant by Camp Delta. So some of this is inconsistent with the article, but not in the important details.) Camps I, II, and III are open-air cells, Camp IV is mostly like a POW camp, for compliant prisoners, Camps V and VI are permanent facilities modeled on Federal Prisons, and Camp Echo holds prisoners in solitary confinement and has cells for prisoners meeting with their lawyers. Outside Camp Delta is Camp Iguana, where prisoners now believed to be innocent are held, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Platinum_%28Guantanamo%29">Camp Platinum</a> (a.k.a. Camp VII), whose existence was kept secret for two years, and whose location is still, as far as I can tell, secret, was for 15 “high-value” detainees.<br /><br />The soldiers interviewed in the article (who were stationed at the base in 2006) talk of a secret detention area they referred to as “Camp No,” in reference to the fact that its existence was denied by everyone present. This may be what was later revealed to be Camp Platinum, I really can't tell. They also tell of a windowless van, that they called the “paddy wagon” that transported prisoners from Camp Delta to other locations, including trips in the direction of “Camp No,” and whose comings and goings were not logged like all other vehicles.<br /><br />The four soldiers are Sergeant Joe Hickman, Specialist Tony Davila, Specialist Christopher Penvose, and Specialist David Carroll. Hickman was on duty as the sergeant of the guard for Camp America (the Navy guarded the cell blocks themselves, the Army guarded the general area), the sector of Guantanamo that housed Camp Delta, but not “Camp No.” His account of the night states that he saw the “Paddy Wagon” retrieve a prisoner from Camp I, leave Camp Delta, heading towards the exit from Camp America (Camp I is within Camp Delta which is within Camp America, just to clarify here). Twenty minutes later it returned to Camp I to repeat the procedure, and then twenty minutes after that it was back. Hickman was curious, and drove out to the exit from Camp America to see which way it was heading on the third trip. Sure enough, it was in the direction of “Camp No.”<br /><br />All three prisoners were removed from Camp Delta by 8:00PM. The “Paddy Wagon” returned at about 11:30PM, according to Hickman. Instead of returning to Camp I, however, this time it backed up to the medical facility. At approximately 11:45, Penvose says that he was asked by an unidentified Navy NCO to relay a coded message to a senior petty officer in the Camp Delta chow hall. Thirty minutes later, according to both Hickman and Penvose, the whole area was awash with stadium lighting and much commotion was taking place. Hickman and Davilla both recall being told that three prisoners had been brought to the medical clinic after having died from having rags stuffed down their throats.<br /><br />Neither Penvose, manning a guard tower near the medical clinic, nor Carroll, manning a guard tower near Camp I, recall seeing any prisoners brought from Camp I to the clinic. The official reports state that the dead bodies were not discovered in their cells until shortly after midnight, rigor mortis having already set in. The implausible tale the NCIS tells, according to the Seton Hall report, continues: <blockquote> Al Zahrani was reportedly discovered hanging in his cell after midnight on June 10. Upon discovery, the Alpha guards did not call the medics to assist, nor did they advise the medical clinic or call for escort guards or any kind of assistance, as required by SOPs. Instead, all five Alpha guards transported Al Zahrani to the medical clinic approximately 100 yards away. According to the autopsy reports, it took about 28 minutes to do so, leaving the cell block completely unguarded while two other detainees hung in their cells. The Alpha guards did not notice two other detainees hanging dead in their cells.</blockquote><br />Despite the rigor mortis, and the fact that the bodies were cold and blue, the medics attempted to resuscitate the three prisoners as they arrived at the clinic. This was when they discovered that each had a rag stuffed deep in his throat. Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi was declared dead at 1:15AM, Salah Ahmed Al-Salami was declared dead at 1:16AM, both at the clinic. Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani was transported to the hospital and declared dead at 1:50AM. Rear Admiral Harry Harris came to the clinic shortly afterwards to praise the medical staff and guards, and to reassure them that there was nothing they could have done.<br /><br />The following day, Admiral Harris told the press “I believe this was not an act of desperation, but rather an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.”<br /><br />I'll leave off here for now. We can call this Part I, covering the events up through the deaths of the three prisoners. Part II, whenever I might get around to it, can deal with the cover-up. I was thinking of throwing a more provocative title up top, but I figure that when pretty much accusing the US military of torture and murder, it's best to build the case carefully, rather than sound like a conspiracy theorist. Hopefully, with the case now laid out by Scott Horton and published online, with four US Army soldiers having come forward, the mainstream press will start to actually dig for some answers.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480387704238607929.post-17584659576168538002010-01-10T00:04:00.003-05:002010-08-22T03:20:26.871-04:00More of the Fisheye PicturesThe week after Christmas is usually not that busy at work, so I grabbed the Fisheye camera to finish off the roll of film. That last self-portrait was one of them, here's some others now that I've scanned them in. All with the Fisheye2 Lomo camera, Fuji Sensia 400, cross-processed, and scanned in with my crappy scanner:<br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjeremyfuckoff/4255404545/" title="img025 by waterj2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/4255404545_1d76819d3f.jpg" width="500" height="342" alt="img025" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjeremyfuckoff/4256167402/" title="img029 by waterj2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4256167402_33062b4a5d.jpg" width="500" height="342" alt="img029" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjeremyfuckoff/4256167542/" title="img026 by waterj2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4256167542_f9b8d69140.jpg" width="500" height="342" alt="img026" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjeremyfuckoff/4256167686/" title="img027 by waterj2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4256167686_6a8249961b.jpg" width="500" height="342" alt="img027" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjeremyfuckoff/4256167866/" title="img028 by waterj2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4256167866_397a1f5b45.jpg" width="500" height="342" alt="img028" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjeremyfuckoff/4255405315/" title="img030 by waterj2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4255405315_e0bcdaf359.jpg" width="500" height="342" alt="img030" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjeremyfuckoff/4255405503/" title="img031 by waterj2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2721/4255405503_3fdbb7c69d.jpg" width="500" height="342" alt="img031" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjeremyfuckoff/4256168334/" title="img032 by waterj2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4256168334_7bd2042332.jpg" width="500" height="342" alt="img032" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjeremyfuckoff/4256168504/" title="img033 by waterj2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2761/4256168504_b177ec2c1f.jpg" width="500" height="342" alt="img033" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjeremyfuckoff/4256168654/" title="img034 by waterj2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4256168654_14c8bb8ee9.jpg" width="500" height="342" alt="img034" /></a>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560491110103841075noreply@blogger.com0