Antidisingenuousmentarianism

I agree with Johnathan. I'm sure there are plenty of things at which one could cock an eyebrow, but the idea is sharp, well-focused and necessary.

Whoa now. I'm always impressed when the paper's editorials take a step opposite to the direction in which they generally go. Hooray for not being in favor of tearing down historic structures, or, to put it more accurately, hooray for tempering your own annoyance at what seems like last-minute involvement to realize y'all are on the same side.

Labels: ABH, opining

Baby shower items! I made a mobile with four little knitted birdies attached to two crossed sticks spray-painted grayish and connected with floral wire. Also this cardigan, although I substituted Knit Picks Cot-Lin for the Berroco, which meant slightly different colors.

Labels: knitting

Holy shit, this is ridiculous. By those standards, the Georgia Museum of Art is not technically a nonprofit either. Is the state suggesting Nuci's Space close rather than raise funds to keep itself open?

How about an assessor makes that decision?

So we all know playing a soft zone doesn't create turnovers, even Willie Martinez. So, um...

Yes, please get rid of the only aspect of the damn deck that might present something visually interesting. God forbid. Or we could go with some Steve Penleys, maybe a nice Wyland on the side of the building.

Oh, and Nathan Deal's a birther, which I'm sure isn't exactly going to hurt his chances in this state.

Great news day!

Labels: ABH, opining

Okay, so I'm a little pissed here that Jane Mayer's "The Predator War" (Oct. 26 New Yorker) is behind the pay wall. I try to think about the rationale the staff has for determining which kind of article is which, and sometimes it seems to me that if they really, really feel something is important, even if it might cause people to buy the magazine or a subscription, they'll make it available. So maybe I'm wrong, or maybe they don't think her article is important, but it is. Or, um, maybe it is available. I'm a subscriber, and it's possible my computer knows that, but when I click on it, despite the blue square, I get the article. So I don't know if you do or not. I hope you do. If you don't, it's about the CIA's increased use of drones to track and assassinate enemies of the United States. I'm sure a lot of you don't have a problem with that, and Mayer traces the big shift in the American mindset regarding state-sponsored assassination (I bet you can figure out when it dates to without my prompting). I, on the other hand, still do. I don't like defining terrorism as an act of war rather than a crime. I don't like the lack of boundaries between "engaged in terrorist activity" and "eating a sandwich." I don't like the unreliability of this. Just because technology's involved and continually improving and pretty darn amazing doesn't mean it can't fail you, especially when human intelligence gets involved and you're relying on some dude who swears up and down that so-and-so is a terrorist. I don't like the lack of oversight. Or the excessive cooperation with governments that are not exactly entirely on the up and up. I really don't like the fact that, while Bush kickstarted the policy, the Obama administration has continued to pursue it with vigor. This is the problem with technocrats. Is using these drones less risky to American lives than sending in American soldiers? No question. But so would be nuking all of Afghanistan, yes? And we don't pursue that. There are numerous other things not to like about the program, too. This shit is wrong. Read the article. I can't imagine it'll convince the more pro-war among you, but it's possible some of y'all are on the fence.

Labels: New Yorker

Oh my. New look again at the ABH.

This is sort of confusing. I guess I assumed these facilities would be located on the campus of the Navy School. But Ryan Blackburn does explain at the end of the article that you can either use the land or pay its worth to an organization that benefits the homeless. I assume they'd rather have the $7.9 million, but a location in the middle of town like that would have been good, too, due to its proximity via bus and foot to jobs, etc.

This seems like a reasonable revision. And these kids really have learned how to take the bus.

Y'all know Maine is kind of scary and rural, right? It's not like this happened in Connecticut.

Yep, props, and it's great that private citizens are footing the bill, but is that the only way historic preservation can happen?

It's not that it was a political act. It was merely an act that was political. She also admits that it's a religious statement, not a purely historical one.

Okay, so maybe it was a non sequitur, but John Huie's right!

Labels: ABH, opining

The theme of this month's Wired is fear, but most of the articles don't have much to do with it. Except for the one on flu shots and the anti-vaccine movement in general, which is excellent and important and should be read. It should make anyone who's thought twice about vaccination feel foolish. Is science arrogant and inconsiderate of the needs of individuals? Often. But do you want to die of measles? Or, just as bad, cause someone else to? I'm not into the whole antibacterial cleansing of every surface, using a machine gun to do the job of a flyswatter. I think it's important for the body to build up immunities on its own. I believe in dirt. But I also believe in a collectivist society, where people do things for the common good, and vaccination is important for that reason.

Ah, risk. It is the idea that fuels the anti-vaccine movement — that parents should be allowed to opt out, because it is their right to evaluate risk for their own children. It is also the idea that underlies the CDC’s vaccination schedule — that the risk to public health is too great to allow individuals, one by one, to make decisions that will impact their communities. (The concept of herd immunity is key here: It holds that, in diseases passed from person to person, it is more difficult to maintain a chain of infection when large numbers of a population are immune.)

Getting the measles is no walk in the park, either — not for you or those who come near you. In 2005, a 17-year-old Indiana girl got infected on a trip to Bucharest, Romania. On the return flight home, she was congested, coughing, and feverish but had no rash. The next day, without realizing she was contagious, she went to a church gathering of 500 people. She was there just a few hours. Of the 500 people present, about 450 had either been vaccinated or had developed a natural immunity. Two people in that group had vaccination failure and got measles. Thirty-two people who had not been vaccinated and therefore had no resistance to measles also got sick. Did the girl encounter each of these people face-to-face in her brief visit to the picnic? No. All you have to do to get the measles is to inhabit the airspace of a contagious person within two hours of them being there.

The frightening implications of this kind of anecdote were illustrated by a 2002 study published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases. Looking at 3,292 cases of measles in the Netherlands, the study found that the risk of contracting the disease was lower if you were completely unvaccinated and living in a highly vaccinated community than if you were completely vaccinated and living in a relatively unvaccinated community. Why? Because vaccines don’t always take. What does that mean? You can’t minimize your individual risk unless your herd, your friends and neighbors, also buy in.

There we go. You should probably get your flu shot, my friends.

Labels: Wired

Two more things from the Oct. 19 New Yorker, neither of which is available online for free.

1. Rebecca Mead's marvelously entertaining article about Alloy Entertainment, responsible for, among many other things, Gossip Girl and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, and creator of syndicated content in general. Here's my favorite bit:

The limitations of the Alloy method are visible even to its most accomplished practitioners. "We don't have literary aims, by and large," Josh Bank says. "It would be nice to have a couple of literary aims. I would like to do more experimental stuff. You can't group-plot 'Harry Potter.' Well, you could, but it wouldn't be 'Harry Potter.'"

About which so: a) his example of high literature is J.K. Rowling and b) he seems to find the plots of that series terribly innovative and unachievable by committee. So maybe Alloy wouldn't have come up with the whole gay wizard thing, but maybe they would.

2. James Wood's piece on Lydia Davis, in which he compares her to Beckett and then takes the exact same approach that most writers on Beckett do, which is to refer repeatedly to how hilarious she is and then immediately supply an example of prose that is anything but. Lydia Davis is not funny. You're welcome to like her somewhat experimental, extremely short stories if you want to, but don't tell me I'm missing out on a fabulous comedic experience.

Labels: New Yorker

Assault: On Oct. 23, a deputy was dispatched about 3 p.m. to Shady Acres Mobile Home Park on North Burson Avenue, Bogart. A 43-year-old woman said she had been assaulted by a 69-year-old man, grabbing her by the wrist and shaking her. The man denied the allegation. A young witness at the park said she saw the man chasing the woman through the trailer park with an ax three weeks ago, then with a fillet knife two weeks ago. The witness said she didn't call law enforcement on either occasion because she didn't want to get involved. The man denied both incidents, but when the deputy looked into the man's vehicle, he saw an ax and fillet knife inside. The woman was informed on how to obtain a warrant. Later that night, the man called to report someone had threatened him with a stick. The responding deputy investigated and determined the man with the stick was some distance away and may have directed his threat at the trailer park's owner. The suspect in that incident was identified as a 50-year-old trailer park resident.

Most accurate trailer park name ever in terms of its evocation of quiet and bucolic peace, eh?

Arrests: On Oct. 25, Lt. Jeff Vaughn was dispatched about midnight to a domestic problem on Cliff Griffeth Road, Danielsville. Vaughn arrived to find the front door open, glass in the door busted out and yelling coming from inside. Vaughn went inside and saw deputy Klint Segars trying to calm the situation, as several people were arguing. They calmed down temporarily, but [Tom] began cursing at his 39-year-old girlfriend, whom he said he was kicking out of his house this night. Vaughn told him about eviction procedures, to which [Tom] replied, "I ain't evicting no g---d---- body. This is my house." When Vaughn told him he was going to jail for disorderly conduct, Hoyt ran to the bedroom and shut the door, but Vaughn and Segars went inside and handcuffed him. They found [Tom]'s pistol in a dresser and took it. As [Tom] was being taken to the patrol car, [Jerry] walked up and cursed at the deputies, telling them they had no right to take his friend to jail. [Jerry] was warned twice to stay away, but he used an expletive in telling the deputies what they could do. When deputies tried to arrest him, he threw an elbow in defense but was forced to the ground. Both [Jerry], 35, of Colonial Drive, Colbert, and [Tom], 36, were taken to jail.

That's three spaces indicated after the G and four after the D, so maybe this is a new expletive.

Oconee. Madison.

Labels: police blotter

McGinty's got coverage of the deck vote. Apparently no one even wanted to make a stand, which is fine. I think the reason you didn't see stronger opposition is that it was presented as an inevitability, and, again, even those of us with objections to this or that aspect do support the deck and think it's a good project. Sooo... I guess we'll just see what we'll see. Parking rates on-street ain't going to be $2 an hour. Yet. And it's not that ugly. Yeah, that's the kind of argument that really gets you enthused about a project.

Yeah. This doesn't mean giving up.

I do think the idea that these spots are going to have a wealth of applicants among whom to choose is maybe a little unrealistic.

Some news on graduate student health insurance, which seems like a slight improvement on the situation. Is there any way grad students can just be folded into the university's regular health insurance? What's the problem with that, exactly?

Labels: ABH, Flagpole, opining

The Mighty Boosh, series 3: We finished this days ago, and I just forgot to write about it because, really, what else is there left to say. Series 3 is an improvement on series 2. It's probably about on the level of series 1. The writing is tighter, for one thing. There's a little much reliance on already created characters at times (like the Hitcher--and speaking of the Hitcher, I was very impressed with this Halloween costume, photographed downtown), but there are also plenty of excellent musical numbers and good jokes. I leave it with affection and hope for more.

Labels: TV

I'm not saying I'm going to fly Georgia Skies (smaller airlines make me nervous), but $39 for a one-way ticket to the airport is cheaper than the $45 you'll pay to ride in a van with AAA Airport Express, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's safer, too.

Ward-Heard's going to be interesting to watch. At very least, it should make Keith pay a bit more attention to his own district.

Cynical or a realistic response to unrealistic federal education standards?

So, Johnathan, you think the renderings of the deck that the developer produced show a realistic picture of its size? I don't see how the two parts of this sentence relate to one another at all:

Lastly, it's purely personal projection to think the developer has 'deceived' the community by misrepresenting the scale of the building since the height of the building falls below existing local ordinances.

It's still a damn big building, yes? I happen to like John English's point that downtown is a historic district. Again, I'm not really taking a pro- or anti-deck position. I just have concerns about it, and when it passes (which it will, as I can't imagine more than a couple of commissioners voting against it, and those more to make a statement, as they know it'll pass), I'm going to keep expressing those concerns. Kelly's right that people are bitching at the last minute, but they always do. I've kind of been complaining about various aspects of this thing since it was announced (design, scale, etc.), and not that I think my voice should carry much weight by itself, but it's not as though no one has made known objections prior to this point.

Labels: ABH, opining

Inkheart: I suppose it's a measure of this movie that I almost forgot to write about it this morning, and I just watched it last night. It's totally fine. I can't think of major problems with any of it. The premise is clever. I assume the book it's based on is good. It's a little bit anti-books and pro-reality in some ways (most of the characters ripped from books would much rather stay in our world, with its cell phones and indoor plumbing and class mobility, than return to their realities within the pages) for a movie that purports to be about the joy of reading, but there's just kind of something missing at the core. It may be a sense of humor or a sense of real peril. Or it may be that it needs something unexpected to happen. Pretty much every twist and turn can be mapped out in advance. This all sounds like I'm slamming it, and I'm not. It really is pleasant and watchable and inoffensive, but if you're looking for this kind of thing and you haven't seen Stardust, I would encourage you to opt for the one with the gay pirate.

Labels: movies

Oh, my. I'm surprised I haven't seen more hoo-ha over Malcolm Gladwell's latest article, "Offensive Play," which draws an analogy between football and dogfighting, due to the violent cost each enacts upon its participants. Really, the article is disturbing for many reasons, mostly fact-based, and the central premise probably weakens it more than anything because the immediate reaction (mine, at least) is outrage. And, of course, that football players do have free will, whereas dogs do not. Football has rules and safety procedures. Whether they're adequate is up for debate, especially following this article, but they do exist, whereas dogfighting isn't really concerned at all with protecting its participants. Violence is central to dogfighting, too, in a way that it's not to football. Dogfighting is about the infliction of violence and pain. If you somehow taught your dog judo and entered it in a dogfight it won, that would be beside the point. I mean, maybe I'm being unfair to dogfighting here. I'm sure it has a competitive element and its own rules, but there are plenty of plays in football that don't depend on violence. There's a kicking game. There are beautiful long passes. There are times when, even without the linemen slamming into one another, a running back twitches his hips and makes his way down the field without being touched. Maybe it's the avoidance of violence that's appealing in those moments--that is, maybe their appeal still depends on it. That's the point that those who don't love football would make. I might point out, too, that Kyle Turley, notorious for ripping off his helmet at inopportune times, is maybe not the best example around which to build your article, horrifying as his stories are. Anyway, I'm curious to read other reactions.

Labels: New Yorker

I can't say I'd be crazy about this step, but if NCLB mandates an 80 percent graduation rate, then I'm betting Clarke County won't be the only school district making the change.

Cool young people love pharmaceutical manufacturing and animal diseases! Eh, the larger point is probably good. But providing the jobs for those young people isn't as big a factor as you might think. Portland has some of the highest unemployment in the country, but it still has an attractive lifestyle.

The Savannah Morning News is correct.

Labels: ABH, opining

It seems like actual Halloween was kind of a letdown after pre-gaming Halloween, due to drizzle and the outcome of a Georgia-Florida game that left no one wanting to party. Good thing there was this awesomeness to let partying happen earlier. Yes, my costume is a kind of hipstery glam panda. Jar is zombie Billy Mays.

Labels: holidays, photos

The "Money Issue" of the New Yorker really could have been more entertaining. Still, Jill Lepore's revisiting of the history of management consulting, especially efficiency, is darn good and comes soaked in healthy skepticism. Here's the crucial point, which appears in various forms throughout but, I think, could have been hammered home a little more:

Gilbreth tried to teach people to save time for joy, but not everyone wants to hurry a pie. Sometimes the best part of making a pie is the mess, and rolling the dough too thin so you’ve got some extra for jam tarts, and for playing with. In the Taylorized world, something has been lost and, until it’s found, adding a few case studies to the curriculum at Harvard Business School probably isn’t enough. Neither unions nor businesses have lived up to Brandeis’s optimism. “If the fruits of Scientific Management are directed into the proper channels,” he wrote, “the workingman will get not only a fair share, but a very large share, of the industrial profits arising from improved industry.” Lately, that share has been going to shareholders and C.E.O.s. Home and work, separated since the first stirrings of the Industrial Revolution, have been growing back together again: BlackBerry on the nightstand, toaster in the photocopy room. Efficiency was meant to lead to a shorter workday, but, in the final two decades of the twentieth century, the average American added a hundred and sixty-four hours of work in the course of a year; that’s a whole extra month’s time, but not, typically, a month’s worth of either happiness minutes or civic participation. Eating dinner standing up while nursing a baby, making a phone call to the office, and supervising a third grader’s homework is not, I don’t think, the hope of democracy.

What are we saving those hours for? What does the worker get in exchange for his increased production? A raise? A promotion? Or just to keep his job, while enriching those above him. Efficiency benefits stockholders and management, but does it always benefit the efficient?

Ryan Lizza's profile of Obama's economic team is also freely accessible, and while it doesn't have one particular quotable bit, it's an interesting profile.

Labels: New Yorker

If you missed it, McGinty and I are disagreeing over the downtown deck here. I then responded to his response thus:

Look, no one's opposed to the deck in principle (except maybe Prestige Parking). That's not an argument that anyone's really having. But just trusting the ACC to work out all the problems without raising them as early as possible is not a good strategy. Those problems are real issues. This kind of all-or-nothing with-me-or-against-me attitude is also an issue. Tweaking things later on is fine, but we already had a vote on whether or not to have a downtown deck, with SPLOST, and it passed. I'd like to see something more specific at this point, and that's what I assumed this would be: a more realistic assessment of what the deck's going to be.

Here are some quick examples from Georgetown, Colorado, of how to minimize the visual impact of new construction. A lot of them aren't necessarily applicable here, but a big, square building with all kinds of whatnot on its corners and the same kind of brick-and-tan look that will be outdated in five years is not the best way to go. I'd be happy to talk to my sister, who's an urban planner, if you'd like some more specific examples of good principles when it comes to this kind of thing. You know what's a better building? The current downtown parking deck, which makes little visual impact (so little that it's easy to forget it's there).

Kelly Girtz is being all reasonable and providing facts here. He does that.

This office really could use more funding.

Yes, dumbasses, you're going to have to trust each other.

McGinty is absolutely right on this. It's not a store. It's not an exchange of money for goods. I don't even know how to analogize this. It's a bit like if I steal your wallet, then tie one of your hands behind your back and challenge you to a juggling contest. The schools could always be doing a better job, even when they are adequately funded, but they're two separate issues. 1. Education should be good. 2. Fund it, jackasses. It's not a business. It's the future of your state and your neighborhood.

Labels: ABH, opining

Thanks, police blotter, for making me (and all of us) feel better about my dysfunctional office.

Assault: On Oct. 16, a deputy met with a 29-year-old Bogart man who said he went to a job site on Stonebridge Circle, Watkinsville. There he had an argument with a co-worker about their working relationship. The other man became upset and punched the Bogart man in the face, causing a nose bleed and bruise. No arrests were made.

And my less-than-stellar housekeeping skills!

Burglary: On Oct. 19, a man reported a burglary at his home on Cemetery Road, Bishop. The man said his home was in disarray - which he said is normal - but he noticed some items missing and called 911. The resident thinks someone entered through a back door.

This was so close to being a great excuse:

Arrest: On Oct. 14, deputy Mark Jerome was dispatched to Paoli Junction to check on a possible reckless driver in a white Chevrolet Lumina. Jerome spotted the car leaving a store parking lot and followed it on Georgia Highway 172, where he saw it weave in the lane and once go into the opposite lane of traffic. When he stopped the car, the woman said she had spilled some boiled peanuts in her lap. However, she spoke with slurred speech and was arrested for DUI. At the jail, Maria Annette Buffington, 36, of Bowman admitted she had taken some Lortabs.

Oconee. Madison.

Labels: police blotter

Sounds hilarious.

Labels: movies, Netflix