Hm. Will a movie with the same tone and feel as the book, the Omnivore's Dilemma, featuring the writer of Fast Food Nation be enough to attract the less bookish to the cause of food movements? I am not a member of any of these movements. I ain't a locavore (local foods), a whole foodie (organics), a vegan/vegetarian, or otherwise. For the most part, I try to eat things I recognize in their original form. Homemade bread, fruits, and veggies. Some cheese, but not cheese product. It does me good.
Of course, what the administration has worked on so far hasn't helped answer the question either - though perhaps that, in itself, is the answer. Obama didn't have a 100 day agenda. He didn't have milestones to hit by now, at least none to which anyone inside gave any voice. The projects are all bigger than that. Can we talk cogently about 100 days Obama stimulus, or do you have to back to his encouraging Congress to pass the second half of the stimulus before he took office? How about economic recovery, led by a man who was involved in the bailout while Barack was still stumping? How about healthcare, stymied initially by the Debaschle but now on track again? Or international relations, with an ongoing stream of meetings with EU leaders, the G20, the Summit of the Americas, etc., none of which run on Washington's schedule? Jobs and homes? Those programs are just in the first stages of being implemented.
What emerges instead of a 100 day picture is a sense of, "My gosh, he's really pushing all of these items as part of an ambitious agenda. He'll continue to work the agenda, and, perhaps most importantly, he isn't thinking 100 days at a time." Give it a year, maybe two, and we'll know how this presidency is really shaping up. Of course, by then, it'll be time to start running for re-election.
Something you might not know about me - I love racing. I don't have 3 hours on a Sunday to watch it, but I have loved it ever since I was a kid. Open wheel, nascar, dirt track, you name it.
Part of what I love about racing happens at about 1:10 in the video above. Carl Edwards' lifts off the track, does a nose-down spin, hits the protective fence, rolls 360 degrees while spinning again, and settles on the track spewing some smoke and little fire. It also spews Carl, unharmed from the cockpit. Fans go nuts - and they should.
There is a lot of controversy today about restrictor plates (makes the cars go slower) and other tech that ostensibly keeps the cars stuck to the pavement and whether it needs work. Carl thinks so. I am not so sure.
This is 200 miles an hour, even with the "restrictor." At these speeds, nudges mean the difference between straight and spinning out of control. It means bone rattling down force. It means risk. And risk is what the fans pay to see by the hundreds of thousands. They want more than the risk of a baseball bat flying into the stands. They want more than the chance that puck might carom off the glass. And they understand, despite anything their lawyer might tell your lawyer a month from now, that the spectacular crash on the track has a tiny, but very real risk, of coming right at them. That's part of what gets their hearts pounding as the pack booms and roars past over and over and over.
I think it is great that NASCAR wants to make this safe for the fans and the drivers. I was watching when the Intimidator hit the wall on the last turns of the 500, so I know what we're protecting. But I think we can go, and perhaps we already have gone, too far. Let's leave some racing in the racing, shall we?
Oh, and Carl, I am glad you walked away. And, Hooo-weeee! Didjo seee thaaht?!
Hillary Clinton with Libyan National Security Advisor Mutassim Qadhafi, son of
the Libyan leader, at the State Department today. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
In other news, YouTube now suspends embedding at the request of a video's poster. A lot of people are taking advantage of this. I suspect we'll see a lot of disabling initially, followed by an equilibrium as people realize that embedding means more views and more views means more exposure, no matter where it happens.
This is the http://www.arielatom.com/. Doesn't it look like the 600HP, 0-60 in 2.9 second banshee that it is? It's faster than a superbike, with better cornering, and no helmet requirement. Did I mention this beauty starts around $40K and is street legal? All built right here in the US.
This TED talk is about how bacteria "talk" to each other. More accurately, it about how they sense when there is a critical mass of bacteria and then act in concert. When the bacteria is virulent, this means you get sick. Solution: Block the sensors, stop the behavior. Amazing.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||M - Th 11p / 10c|
|Full Metal Budget|
The Pentagon slashed Boeing's airborne laser program, citing "technology" and "affordability" concerns. Right - doesn't work and really expensive. Here we call that a "lemon." I won't go into why the system is flawed here, but suffice it say that, to work, the system would have to be aloft 24/7/365 and close enough to every single possible launch site to shoot at a missile in the boost phase. Oh, and these launch sites include unknown places in the middle of the ocean because of nuclear subs.
It was a cool idea, but it needed to go. Good work!
I was going to put in a note that some states require you to be resident before you can get a same-sex marriage, but I just looked and nobody has one. MA dropped its requirement in July 2008. The new law in IA doesn't have one.
Whichever side of the debate you occupy, these sure are interesting times.
Thing is, the stroking is slower than a normal keypad. Also, it is only useful if you can't see the keys, and it requires that you remember numbers. In that scenario, it is a lot faster to use voice dailing because I can just say the same of the contact. Even if the computer needs to "confirm" what I said, it is still faster.
Great tech, but it may solve a problem few have.
[HT www.gizmodo.com ]
The article never mentions how little congressional staffers actually make. There is a pithy quote from Pelosi's aide placed, it seemed to me, in ironic counterpoint, noting that these bonuses help hard-working aides who are underpaid. No numbers. Instead, there is a note that out of 2,000 staffers, 3 got $14,000. So, less than one percent got a "big" bonus? Hm. I just can't get angry about that. Sounds quite responsible really. Oh, and could you mention for the folks out there that most of these people have college debt, many including graduate degree debt?
I sound ticked don't I? I know a lot of staffers on both sides of Congress. Whatever you may think of their members, these aides think less. They are nose to the grindstone policy wonks who deal directly with constituents daily to bring the local concerns to Washington. They aren't doing it for the money, that's for sure. Even the power isn't enough to keep you going. It has to a sense of service. Crapping on these people because their bosses can provide a little extra to show their gratitude - and I do mean a little - that's low.
(a) "Fairness": This will cost states a lot of tax revenue because higher taxes mean lower cigarette sales, and
(b) "Security": This will increase the level of tobacco smuggling.
To Shiller's first real point: let's talk about the real cost of cigarette smoking - the health costs that many of us bear either in the increased cost of private insurance or the outlays of public moneys in public hospital bills. Shiller never mentions what the reduction in cigarette sales could mean to that number.
Further, I have no idea what this has to do with fairness. Sure, the tax will have more of an effect on sales in states where the smokestax is lower. Would Prof. Shiller really have the federal government set a different tax level in each state? How unfair!
To his second point regarding smuggling. I imagine the increased cost would raise smuggling. That's why we have an ATF. Shiller's statement that this money likely funds terrorists is again, just a bald statement.
To the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal - how about demanding a little integrity from your writers?