I'm going skiing this weekend, either Saturday or Sunday depending on who's interested in coming with me and which day works better for them. I will go to Timberline resort on Mt. Hood which promises to be about an hour and a half away by car and I'd like to be there by 9:00 at the latest, so I want to leave town by 7:30. If you have your own skis, there's room in the car for them. At this point I'm planning on renting when I get there.

If you'd like to go with me, give me a ping.

A while back, my friend stereotype441 was telling a group of us about the physicist who initially suggested that matter might have wavelengths. Obviously, the theory has scientific merit but I'm more interested in how stereotype441 paraphrased his paper. He said (as near as I can remember),

So what if matter had wavelength, 'cause check this out: We could use the same math we've been using for waves and it also correctly explains mass physics

Like, wow. I love that wording SO HARD. I think it could be used for everything:

Calculus:
So what if for each number Epsilon there were some number delta 'cause check this out: ...

Lunch:
So what if I went to get some food, 'cause check this out: I'm hungry.

Job interviews:
So what if you hired me 'cause check this out: I'd rock like Bon Jovi at this job.

Break-ups:
So what if we're not right for each other, 'cause check this out: I'm not happy.

Politics:
So what if you voted for me, 'cause check this out: I loves me some America.

This is driving me slightly crazy and if I can't rant on my own LJ, where can I rant?

This article says the labor market improved in November

It didn't. The first derivative of the labor market improved in November. For those of you who never took calculus, let me explain. The first derivative describes the rate of change for something. It's not the numbers your speedometer is pointing to, it's how fast the speedometer needle is moving.

To extend the car analogy a little further, the economy is loosing jobs like a car slipping backwards down a hill. In November, somebody measured the rate of slow and said, "we're slowing down!"

This is something that needs to happen before we can see forward progress again and the slow-down in job loss is a good thing; it provides our first glimmer of hope for recovery. But I want to stress something. Things are continuing to get worse.

I've heard it said that for every day you don't exercise, you loose two days of fitness. I have no way of knowing if that's true and I doubt even a doctor could measure it that way but it feels true when I get back on my bike after a lapse in use, so I think it may really be close to that.

I think I need to amend that rule of thumb and say, "double for thanksgiving week."

Ok, I wasn't sure at first because I don't like change, but kde4 is a big improvement. Go team-KDE!

I just tried on a shirt I bought the last time I needed to go "business casual." I remember that I liked the shirt. I thought it was slimming and flattering. It looks like a tent now. Also, apparently I get this look on my face when I'm concentrating on something?

I've been doing a lot of mulling recently about hard-line-ism and intellectual righteousness vs pragmatism and manners. I've seen the struggle played out in two theaters recently and neither case makes the quandary any clearer to me and I'd like to have a discussion to see if I can make progress in my thinking.

The first case is in bicycling. There have been a lot of articles on BikePortland recently about the progress the BTA is making with various Portland city departments like Transportation and Police. Last week, PBOT issued their first ever traffic advisory aimed at bicycles, which I take a good sign that bicycling is gaining official legitimacy as a mode of transportation here. There is also the recent Community Policing Agreement. [ SEE TANGENT-1 BELOW ] Jonathan Maus, who writes for Bike Portland, interviewed Rosie Sizer, the chief of police, reported that she said that "this new tone from bike advocates is what has made it possible for her and her staff to come to the table and work productively on bike traffic issues" (wording from Maus). [ SEE TANGENT-2 BELOW ] I think police support means that bicycling advocacy has become sufficiently muted and submissive that the police and the power-structures they protect find it acceptable, and here's where I circle back to my question about hard-line-ism vs pragmatism. Is it possible that meek, submissive advocates can get more done with police support than strong, indomitable advocates can get done while the police work against them? I honestly don't know. Progress is slow either way and I think the difference is hard to measure. What's even more unnerving is that I'm afraid that the goals of the submissive advocates could be easier to influence. Once a movement has police support, I begin to question whether it's still working for me or not.

So is the change in tone in bicycle advocacy a good thing? Is it a good thing that the police are finally "helping?" I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

The second case is Atheism. I've said a number of times before that I have lots of respect for the likes of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. Especially Harris, whose major argument is that "belief" and "faith" provide a shield so that ideas can't be questioned and that (1) has allowed religious people to hold on to bad ideas in perpetuity and (2) put people in positions of respect and power who are trained in the avoidence of thought and analysis. But I've started to see a wave of backlash and I think it's important that my atheism not become faith and that I continue to question my own ideas. Recently, I read an article that cites a book by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum called, Unscientific America. It's aimed specifically at Dawkins because Kirshenbaum is a biologist and it says that Dawkins presents a unnecessarily divisive choice, that moderates of faith who might be receptive to a blend of faith with scientific reasoning might become more firmly faithful because Dawkins says the two disciplines are mutually exclusive.

But this doesn't make my stance on hard-line-ism any more clear, either because I agree with both of them. The "new atheists" aren't just the latest in a long line since Galeleo to suggest that investigation and evidence might have some benefit over faith, they're actually suggesting that faith is hurting us, and I think they're right. On the other hand, they're mean and derisive and I can't believe that helps, either. See my quandry?

TANGENT-1:
I think the agreement is a small but good thing with two important components: (1) A formal (and therefore harder to drop through the cracks) way for the bureau of transportation and police department to have two-way communication about where the traffic trouble spots are and (2) a commitment from the police department to put officers at trouble spots and a commitment from PBOT to fix those spots.

TANGENT-2:
Sizer's statement as paraphrased by Maus got my hackles up when I first read it and in writing this post, I finally figured out why. That's a really asinine, childish approach to police work and it's an attitude I would find unacceptable from any adult and especially from the police chief. How is it that the Sizer is so emotionally fragile that she finds it impossible to work on an issue when she doesn't like the "tone" of some of the other people involved? I'm not saying I expected her to work WITH poorly-toned bicycle advocates, that probably wouldn't have been productive, but the way this statement reads makes me think that she wasn't working on bike issues at all before now and she's the chief of police for the biking-est city in the US. What's worse is that her statement taken in context with a line from the recently published bicycle training video which explicitly states that policy changes are because the "old, outlaw edginess" no longer dominates Portland's bike culture, tells me that the police department mindfully, willfully and officially ignores the needs and safety of sub-cultures they don't like. This REALLY gets my hackles up because it's the same TYPE of behavior I've seen directed to various targets through our recent history. Fifty years ago, the police were protecting decent society from "uppity blacks." Twenty years ago they were protecting decent society from "sexual deviants" at gay bars and dance clubs and five years ago they were protecting decent society from "edgy, outlaw cyclists." One good thing I want to say about that pattern is that our society continues to examine the target of the police misbehavior and we continue to find it inappropriate. But I find the pattern disturbing because we're not examining the behavior itself. Why do we continue to tell police departments that they're targeting the wrong people but we keep not telling them that they shouldn't be the ones setting the targets? That's for the legislature to do.

I know it's short notice but if you're not playing D&D tonight, you might consider coming over to my house instead for a (probably geeky) socializing night. I think we'd be hard pressed to over-talk the game from five blocks away. :)

Does anybody have a ladder? I need to get up on the roof and clear the gutters so they stop dripping rain into the window well and filling up my basement?

Traffic law on lane-changes is not explicit and seems to be derived from other laws, which makes it hard to cite in a concrete way. Based on tickets I've seen written in the past, I know two things are true:

• A lane change where you can get the butt of your vehicle completely in front of somebody is a legal one and if they slam into the back of you, that's their fault.
• A lane change where you hit the side of someone else's vehicle with your own was an illegal one and the accident is your fault.

I think what that ends up meaning is that you have to yield to somebody signaling a lane-change unless you're beside them or overtaking at such a rate that you will be by the time they make a move. I have also noticed through my extensive research in human behavior as I try not to get run over on my bike, that even with my "facts" and "solid reasoning," I seem to hold the minority opinion on the matter. I suspect most people operating cars would cite ORS-811.does_not_exist, which reads: "GET THE !@#$ OUT OF MY WAY, I'M LATE FOR WORK!!!"

That being said, sometimes people driving cars really do yield when I signal. Once last week, it was even a cop.

And last night on my way home as I was obsessively signaling my every movement when taking or yielding the lane passing cars on Ainsworth, somebody in a giant SUV rolled down his window on the way past, gave me the thumbs-up sign and shouted, "you ride good!"

My bike computer said I averaged 14.2 miles per hour on my ride in this morning. That average has a lot to do with a sustained 23mph burst down about a mile and a half of Vancouver st. It was a lot of fun.

My friend, boojum recently put up a post in which she said that having {cis,white} privelage allowed her not to think about her privilege and that got me thinking, so I want to ask Dr. LJ a question.

Please keep in mind when you read this, it's not socratic, I'm not trying to use a line of questioning to lead you to my point of view, I'm really asking. Answer me if you can.

( First, the intellectual underpinnings of my question )

Next, some background to the question:
I'm a white male living in the middle class of a wealthy, powerful country and if I combine my existing money and privilege with my skills, education and work ethic, I have a really solid expectation of staying in the middle class for the rest of my life, even as it shrinks and the wage-gap widens. In liberal discourse, I'm positively brimming with privilege; I've even heard an argument (from someone whom I don't believe any of you know and who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty) that no person as privileged as I am has any business being a liberal. But despite all that, I think I may have something valuable to offer a privilege-conversation and since mine is considered a minority opinion in that purposely inverted context, it tends to be flagged as invalid and ignored.

Assuming the experience I bring to the table as a privileged person is accurate and valid, we can assume for the purposes of discussion that I'm right to say that privilege doesn't GIVE me anything directly. What it does, is stop people from reacting with objection or surprise when I stand up to take what's mine. For example, if I apply for a job that's over my head and walk into the interview like I own the place, that actually makes it MORE likely that I'll get the job. If a woman did that, she'd look like a pretentious, power-hungry bitch (see: Hillary Clinton... If she were a man, we wouldn't blink at her career).

And finally, my question:
Is there any value for the under-privileged in simply ignoring the negative reactions you get and behaving as if you're privileged? Have any of you tried it? Do you have a story to share?

I rode through foot-deep standing water this morning and discovered that the fabric tongues of my supposedly waterproof boots leak quite a lot. What did we learn today? The goo that waterproofs leather is no good for fabric.

Also, maybe it's a good idea to pack extra shoes and socks in the dry-bags. I think I may need some new shoes which:

• are large enough for my feet
• are work-appropriate (not house-slippers, etc.)
• take up as little space in the dry-bag as possible

I hate it when they honk. I know it's the least offensive of the list of "bad stuff they could do to me, but it scares me, it feels like a threat.

As a follow-up to yesterday's post where I advised taking the lane whenever legally permitted, I want to offer some advice today about how to behave if stopped by the police. If you take the lane like I advised, you'll invoke a lot of driver-anger and eventually, you'll be stopped by a police officer. I've been stopped a LOT, having had long hair and a beard in high school in a small town, and I know something about this. I feel like this is even more choir-preaching than the last one, but maybe it'll help somebody.

• The road-side is not the place to argue about how to interpret the law, even if the cop is WRONG WRONG WRONG. It might help you to tell the cop your rationale for doing what you did if that rationale is that you knew it was wrong and this was a terrible mistake and you'll never do it again, but other than that (like if the cop is WRONG!), probably best to shut your mouth and leave the arguing for court.
• If you get a ticket, you will be asked to sign it. The language on the ticket talks a lot about how the signature means you acknowledge the ticket was given to you and a really cynical reading of the legalese might make you wonder if you're admitting fault when you sign. You're not. You can always argue a ticket in court, go ahead and sign it. If you refuse, the cop is required to arrest you.
• Police departments all over the country seem to believe that it's a good idea to try to invoke the socially submissive circuits in your ape-brain to keep their contact with you under control. If you're a natural-born alpha-dog like me, you'll bristle HARD. Don't let it get the better of you, submitting, even to a cop who is WRONG, is pragmatic. If you doubt me, check out this open letter to the community written by a Portland city attorney on behalf of the police department and two men who were cited by a cop who was WRONG. It was signed by the two men, the officer who was WRONG and the police chief. The letter is an interesting read for two things:
  
  • The police department freely admits it has systematic, not individual, lack of understanding for traffic law as it applies to bikes.
  • The first paragraph on page two says that cops make requests that sometimes seem unnecessary and overbearing in order to "manage disruptive, emotion-driven behavior, even occasional violence, that can erupt in an instant" and keep everyone safe from each other and from traffic, "real or potential."
• Don't say anything unless you absolutely have to. Don't believe that's necessary? Check out this pair of videos. The first is a video of a law school professor talking about WHY you should never talk to a police officer under any circumstances and the second is a video of a cop in that same classroom giving his opinion on the matter (they agree).

As I get more experience as a bike commuter, I have some ever-changing views on what's a good idea and what isn't on the road. Recently, I've invented a rule of thumb:

Any time the statutes allow me to take the lane, I should do it.

There's nothing in the ORS that REQUIRE a cyclist to take the lane and if you ride a bike on roads where people also drive cars, you know that as a cyclist, you'll get a lot of pressure to stay out of the way. And indeed, you SHOULD stay out of the way as much as possible or you'll be in violation of ORS 811.425. But in general, if you're in a situation where you CAN legally take the lane, it's probably because that's the safer thing to do.

For example, ORS 814.430 allows you to take the lane whenever you can match the "normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions." If a line of cars is stopped at a red light, you can match their speed; I've yet to meet a cyclist who couldn't keep up with "stopped." Again, the law doesn't REQUIRE you to take the lane but the overwhelming majority of the times I've felt threatened on the road were when I was riding quickly past a row of stopped cars. It's especially dangerous to do it on the right side of the car because of the way a driver's mirrors are set and the daily training drivers get that it isn't necessary to watch their right sides for overtaking vehicles.

I'm posting this because of an article that BikePortland highlighted about a cycling death in Redwood Shores, CA. The "blame the victim" mentality the police are vomiting up in that article makes my blood boil. As a matter of fact, I recommend against reading it, it'll just make you mad. The circumstances were that a truck with a trailer was stopped at a light when a woman on a bike pulled up on its right hand side, the truck's right side. The truck made a right turn which knocked the woman over and crushed her under the rear tires, killing her instantly. The driver was unaware he'd hit anything.

Like I said, blaming the victim is reprehensible. Just like nobody is asking to be raped when they wear a slinky dress, nobody is asking to be run over when they pull up on the right side of a stopped vehicle. This driver needs to be charged with involuntary manslaughter and he needs to have his weapon (truck) taken away from him. Also, the cops involved need a swift kick in the junk. The way they're talking about this is really offensive. There's no excuse for killing another human being like that.

But it's worth noting that Oregon law would have allowed her to avoid the situation (I suspect CA law would as well) by taking the lane and waiting for the red light behind the truck. This would have been a benefit both to the cyclist, who would now be alive, and to the driver, who I hope will face significant legal and financial trouble and who I assume is experiencing a lot of guilt over taking a life.

So, if you ride a bike in traffic in Oregon, I encourage you to merge with traffic whenever you can. I like you. I want you to survive.

I've found a new source of minor joy called, "garfield minus garfield."

http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/

They take garfield comics and remove the animals all together. What's left is just a dude saying ridiculous stuff. Today's is especially good. :)

Just in case ms_nico_blue's "dead" tag on the boy-in-the-balloon story caught your eye:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_boy_in_balloon

He's not dead, they found him hiding in a cardboard box in the garage, he was never in the balloon.

---

EDIT:
Apparently I got some wires crossed. ms_nico_blue didn't say anything about this, it was fixedd... So... Yeah...

Anybody have a spare invite for google voice? I'd really like to try it out.

Well, the Senate just passed a terrible health care bill. It's seriously some of the worst legislation I've ever seen and it's the ultimate in "fox guarding the hen house" style legislation. It makes exactly one substantive change to the way health care is done right now: It rewards the health insurance companies who currently abuse us and rewards them with more customers. Who are the "more customers," you ask? All of the people who aren't currently buying any insurance at all. And why aren't these people buying insurance? Overwhelmingly it's because they can't pay for it. So how are people who can't currently afford health insurance going to pay for it now that they are forced to? I don't know. Congress hasn't supplied any help for most of them.

I knew this was going to happen months ago but it still pisses me off, it's a BIG tax hike on the people who can least afford it directly into the pockets of the people who least deserve it. I expected that congress would respond with an anemic, do-nothing bill when we asked them for health care. What I didn't expect when we elected them was that they'd shit the bed like this.