HinesSight

Why I don't want a new Kindle 2

I must be one of the first people to get a Kindle 2 in my book-loving hands and return it the same day. Namely, yesterday.

Amazon sent me my order for its upgraded electronic reading device much more quickly than I expected. I'd been leaning toward canceling my purchase, but figured I had some time to do the deed, since Amazon said it was giving preferential Kindle 2 treatment to owners of Kindle 1.

So after I got an email saying my Kindle was on its way, all I could do was wait for its arrival. I felt sort of sorry for it after the UPS guy dropped off the box. Came all this way and now I was sending it back, unwanted.

I took a photo of my briefly owned Kindle 2 before the return authorization slip was tucked into the box and the cover resealed. Looked nice.

And I'm sure the device itself is as cool as its many satisfied users say it is. I was glad that Amazon's zipped-up packaging didn't allow me to slip the Kindle out and give it a try, because I was afraid that my gadget-loving soul would irrationally scream "Keep it!"

Here are the main reasons I decided to send the Kindle 2 back:

(1) There's nothing like a real book.

I love my MacBook laptop. And my iPhone. Reading on a screen feels natural to me. But only for transient information. Email messages, web browsing, stuff that comes and goes.

I read mostly non-fiction. I keep almost all of my books, partly because I'm a habitual highlighter and used book stores shun my heavily yellow-marked pages. Every morning I read before I meditate. Most recently, a book that I'd read and re-read.

I loved looking at the artifacts of my previous readings.

Originally I'd highlighted in green, then yellow. I'd written notes on the inside back cover. I'd penned in question marks next to statements I disagreed with and round approving circles next to sentences that brought forth a right on.

I realize that the Kindle has some sort of highlighting and note-making features. But it dawned on me that this wouldn't be the same as holding a book with paper pages and marking it up the way I'm used to.

Plus, with the Kindle I wouldn't be able to go to a bookcase and fun my finger along the spines of previously read titles, looking for an old friend that I wanted to become reacquainted with.

(2) The cost savings don't pan out.

First, there's the steep $359 cost of the Kindle itself.

At first I rationalized forking out that amount of money because most e-books for the Kindle on Amazon cost around $10. With the list price of hardcovers running much more than that, seemingly the Kindle would pay for itself.

But I don't read a whole lot of newly released books. And when I checked into a few books featured in a recent issue of Newsweek, I realized that copies usually were available for less than the cost of a Kindle version.

For example the Kindle edition of "Nudge" costs $10.88, while new paper copies are available from non-Amazon sellers for $7.75. Even with shipping, I could have a "real" book for about the same price as an electronic book.

Further, many of the books I like aren't available for the Kindle. Including one I wrote.

I asked my book designer about a Kindle edition. He was down on the idea, saying that he has never seen a book that looks decent on the Kindle, and complexly formatted books like mine are especially difficult to covert to a Kindle edition.

So I've decided to stick with my practice of ordering used books from Amazon whenever I can. Often I find that I can get a new $17 book in a used "like new" condition for $7 or so, shipping included.

(3) The technology needs to be even cooler to grab me.

I'll leave it to those more geeky than me to describe what the Kindle is lacking (color, touch screen, genuine web connection, etc) -- see here, here, and here.

Some techno-stuff I hear about and instantly say, "I've got to have it!" Like, the iPhone and the Flip Video camcorder. The Kindle...I've been going hot and cold with it.

Having settled into lukewarm, that isn't reason enough to add $359 to our VISA bill for something that doesn't elicit a strong Wow in me.

Legalizing marijuana would boost the economy

Way to go, Tom Ammiano. He's a California assemblyman who has introduced a bill to legalize marijuana in his state.

AB 390 would decriminalize pot but regulate it like alcohol, limiting sales to those 21 and over. It would also impose a tax of $50 per ounce—something Ammiano said could bring $1 billion annually into our cash-starved state.

The bill doesn't have much chance of passing, given the United States' irrational drug policies. But it's a much-needed step in the right direction.

Recently New Scientist ran a story, "Radical alternatives proposed for cannabis controls," that described why legalizing marijuana makes both scientific and societal sense.

What should we do to minimise the harm cannabis can cause to the health and welfare of users and to society at large? One answer, according to a report by a group of prominent academics and government advisers, is to change the law to allow the state to prepare and distribute the drug for recreational use.

This proposal is the most controversial of several recommendations from a commission assembled by the Beckley Foundation, a British charity dedicated to exploring the science of psychoactive substances. "The damage done by prohibition is worse than from the substance itself," says Amanda Feilding, the founder of the Beckley Foundation.

Click on this image to see the relative harm of cannabis, tobacco, heroin, and alcohol. It makes absolutely zero sense that the least harmful substance, cannabis, is illegal while tobacco and alcohol are blessed (and taxed) by governments.

The NORML blog keeps track of marijuana-related legislation and other policy initiatives aimed at bringing this country out of its crazy Reefer Madness! mentality. It was good to see that the Obama administration is going to put a stop to federal raids on state medical marijuana providers.

I also found "10 Reasons to Get High About Marijuana in 2009." Excellent.

If the Oregon legislature ever takes up a bill to legalize the selling of marijuana, I'll go to a hearing and present myself as living testimony in favor of cannabis' harmlessness. For a couple of years during my San Jose State college days, 1966-1971, I was stoned nearly every day.

Yet I got great grades, nearly all A's. My friends and I drove our cars and motorcycles all around the Bay Area, with nary a marijuana-fueled accident on our record. Nobody ever had the slightest desire to try hard drugs -- just other varieties of psychedelics.

Most perusasive of all in these difficult economic times, we contributed mightily to local restaurant profit margins. Those midnight munchie runs to Denny's put a lot of money into corporate pockets, and tips in the waitresses'.

Bring on European "socialism" -- the U.S. is ready for it

Driving back to Salem from Portland today, a single glance across the median of I-5 gave me a vision of how much better this country could be if we became more Euro-socialist (I prefer the term, "communitarian").

A car had stopped in the break-down lane. Next to it was a pickup with a seal on the door. I'm pretty sure it was one of the vehicles that helps drivers who are out of gas, or otherwise need assistance.

A government vehicle.

With that glance, a warm feeling of Wouldn't it be great if this act of governmental kindness extended across our whole society? rolled over me.

If people who needed health care were guaranteed they'd get it.
If losing your job didn't entail the risk of being tossed out onto the streets.
If getting a good college education was available to all, poor and rich alike.
If public transportation made it possible to get around without private cars.

Whenever friends come back from Europe, they extol the way of life there. The United States is horribly backward in so many ways, compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

I'm ready for some European style socialism. So are a majority of Americans, given the results of the past few elections. We're tried of unfettered individualism and irresponsible capitalism.

Bring it on, President Obama.

Mint is a great personal finance site

I hate watching our investments decline in value. And worrying about whether we're spending more than we should. But I love Mint, a free money management web service.

After reading about Mint in a news magazine, I fired up my MacBook this morning and decided to see how good it looked.

First impression: nice. And that carried over to the entire hour or two I spent on the Mint web site.

Sign-up was simple. Then came the part I was worried about, giving Mint access to our checking account, investment portfolio, and IRAs.

I've used Quicken for many years, and have had quite a few problems with its melding of financial data from various sources. Recently I tried to get Quicken Online to log into our checking account. It didn't even recognize West Coast Bank, much less our account.

So I was prepared to enter into some lengthy hassles with Mint after I signed up and the site started asking if I wanted to register various sorts of accounts: cash, investment, savings, and such.

Pleasant surprise. Everything went smoothly. No problems at all.

My experience was similar to that of a New York Times reporter, who said in "Where's It All Going? Find Out Online" that Mint worked better for him than competitors such as Wesabe.

But he quoted Mint's founder, Aaron Patzer, as saying that only 50% of users have a glitch-free experience getting their financial accounts registered. Lucky me, I guess.

I then explored the wonderful world of Mint's analysis and reporting tools. My wife and I aren't big on budgeting, but the financial meltdown has spurred me to study what we spend our money on.

Mint makes it easy. All of our recent credit card and checking transactions were listed, with a suggested category for most items (handwritten checks were an exception; I had to add those categories on my own).

Mint knew that Netflix was "DVDs," Shell was "gasoline," and Fred Meyer was "groceries." With other unfamiliar local businesses, it took me a while to edit mistakes in categorizing transactions.

I also had to figure out how I wanted to treat items like bird seed ("garden" or "pets"? I went with pets, even though the animals we're feeding are wild). Mint has a good built-in categorization scheme and allows modifications to fit individual circumstances.

When I was done cleaning up the credit card and checking transactions I rushed on to "Trends" to see where our money was going. Some remodeling work made the "Home" category stand out in February.

I was surprised that "Health and Fitness" comprised such a big chunk of the pie chart. Clicking on that slice opened up the details. Since our Blue Cross premium is on autopay, it's easy to lose track of how much we're paying for private health insurance. (Obama, help! Reform health care!)

On the "Investments" page I saw that Mint had retrieved data for our portfolio holdings back to September 2008 and presented me with a downward sloping graph of the total value.

That was depressing. But I was encouraged by how Mint also showed a trend line for the S&P 500, and currently we were 14% above it (mostly due to the mix of bonds we own in addition to equities).

I was eager to show Mint off to Laurel when she got home. Wifely worrier that she is, her first thought was "Is our information secure?"

After reviewing some privacy FAQs and watching a video of Patzer telling us how safe his web site is, we were reassured. The way I understand it, Mint doesn't store login names and passwords on its servers. Instead, they are kept on the sites of the financial institutions.

So if someone was able to hack into Mint, all they would find is information about the spending patterns of people. There isn't any way to get into the actual accounts.

Mint has an impressive collection of awards and positive reviews. Well-deserved, based on my one-day experience with what seems to be a very nicely designed money management site.

Quicken is worried. As it should be.

A few months ago I got a letter from Quicken telling me that my 2006 version of my program soon won't support online access to our financial accounts, so I should fork out $50 or whatever for an upgrade.

I don't think so. Mint looks like it will fill our needs just fine. For free. Goodbye Quicken.

Where does money go in a financial meltdown?

When investments tank and lots of people are losing money, does this mean that a small number of fat cats are making money?

This question came in for quite a bit of discussion at our house last night. We hosted the monthly meeting of our Salon discussion group, where we talk about whatever is on people's minds.

And right now losing money in the financial meltdown is front and center in most American psyches.

A few in our group were convinced that somebody has the money they've lost in the stock market. "How could it just disappear?" they said. "It has to be somewhere, which means someone is profiting from our losses."

Fortunately, we had a retired economics professor, Russ, in the room, or we could have kept on arguing about this all night.

Because common sense argues for the "one person wins, another loses" financial view. After all, if you drop a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk, and a guy behind you picks it up, you've lost $20 and he's gained the same amount.

But Russ pointed out that this is erroneous when it comes to investments -- which behave differently from cash in your pocket or a checking account.

The value of stock, or a home, can simply disappear. No one has to buy and sell it, even though buying and selling is one way the value of an investment is determined. Note: one way.

There are other ways, Russ said. We've seen these happening a lot the past few months, such as when bad economic news triggers a sharp decline in the stock market.

Share prices may open lower in the absence of buying and selling. If I understand correctly what Russ was saying, it is new information about likely future profits that reduces investment values.

Yes, sometimes it is possible to trace where the money goes in a series of stock trades. In this case the amount of money made by some is balanced by the amount lost by others.

However, this Associated Press story presents a broader and more accurate picture of what's happening in a financial meltdown.

Whether you're a stock broker or Joe Six-pack, if you have a 401(k), a mutual fund or a college savings plan, tumbling stock markets and sagging home prices mean you've lost a whole lot of the money that was right there on your account statements just a few months ago.

But if you no longer have that money, who does? The fat cats on Wall Street? Some oil baron in Saudi Arabia? The government of China?

Or is it just — gone?

If you're looking to track down your missing money — figure out who has it now, maybe ask to have it back — you might be disappointed to learn that it was never really money in the first place.

Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale, puts it bluntly: The notion that you lose a pile of money whenever the stock market tanks is a "fallacy." He says the price of a stock has never been the same thing as money — it's simply the "best guess" of what the stock is worth.

This also is the answer given in today's Parade magazine "Ask Marilyn" feature by Marilyn vos Savant. She says that lost investment value in the stock market never existed in the first place, because it is based on what shares would theoretically sell for.

Makes sense.

For one thing, if the last transaction of a company's shares occurs at a $100 trade value, this doesn't mean that everyone who owns those shares could completely sell out at that price.

Obviously all that selling would drive down the price, just as every house in a neighborhood may be worth $500-600,000 -- but if each owner puts a "For Sale" sign up at once, almost certainly they won't get what they think their investment is worth.

Here's another answer to the question "When the stock market crashes, where does the money go?" Same conclusion: nowhere, because it never really existed.

The money does not "go" anywhere. It is literally lost. Stock market money is mostly a store (measure) of value, not a medium of exchange. When the value of a stock goes down, the money by which it is measured simply disappears.

Remember that money, especially as a store of value, is a matter of faith: it cannot be exchanged for anything tangible (e.g., gold or silver) except in a market in which the value of products is largely a matter of faith. The value of money in the stock market is based on faith in the value of the stocks that the money represents. So when the value of the stocks declines, the money that measures the value of the stocks declines by the same amount. No one gets the money that is lost. It simply evaporates.

Well, it's reassuring to know that someone else doesn't have the money that my wife and I have lost in the meltdown.

But it sure would be a lot more reassuring to get the money back.

Wellspring Center teaches secrets of happiness

A couple of days ago I learned how to be happy -- in less than ninety minutes. Plus, I got to eat a terrific dinner and drink some excellent Oregon Pinot Noir during the lesson.

Sweet!

This was the first time Laurel and I had been to Woodburn's Wellspring Center for Extraordinary Living.

Yes, Woodburn, a city between Portland and Salem that few people associate with hip, cutting edge, philosophically profound integrative medicine.

When we entered the Wellspring building (a remodeled K-Mart reportedly), I thought "Wow!" The place looked like something you'd find in trendy southern California. Curving corridors, tile everywhere, Zen-like design touches. Tres slick.

I half-expected to see Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt wandering down the hall from the spa.

Instead we and a bunch of other happiness-seekers were met at the sign-in table by the presenters, Daniel Schweigert, MD and Susan Benner.

Sporting "I am happiness" t-shirts, they radiated energy, enthusiasm, and warmth. As did everyone else associated with Wellspring.

I don't like fakey New Agey personal development seminars and had some doubts about this one, which Laurel dragged me to encouraged me to attend with her. I had to miss my Tai Chi class, and anticipated that I was going to spend a couple of hours thinking "I'd be happier if I hadn't come."

Wrong. Daniel and Susan put on a heck of a happiness show. Nicely organized. Good blend of spontaneity and slides. Right on time. I even didn't mind doing the exercises.

Like spending four minutes speed-writing a bunch of stuff that makes me happy. I enjoyed being bluntly honest and not censoring myself -- which was one of the nine characteristics of happy people Daniel and Susan talked about.

Identification: assess what makes you happy, vs. what you're told by others should make you happy.

These characteristics came from a book by Rick Foster and Greg Hicks, "How We Choose to Be Happy." (naturally, they have a website)

Foster and Hicks say that they researched the book by driving around the country and asking locals, "Who is the most richly happy person around?" After getting a name, they'd head off to talk to the person and find out his or her secrets.

Here's a summary of what they found. I liked the initial item in Foster's blog post, given the crappy economic news that keeps on hitting us these days.

Having the intention to react differently to circumstances. The instant we make the choice to relax when we're paying exorbitant prices at the gas pump, or we cool our rage and decide to laugh at talk radio, we leave behind the heavily stressed flight-fight-freeze reactions of our "victim brain." We feel a lot happier -- and it's biochemically a good choice for our health.

We may not be able to choose our circumstances or the events around us, but we do have the power to choose our reactions. And happy people take that special power and choose wisely. And, by the way, this is not denial - it's the choice to not let external circumstances over which we have no control guide our reactions.

I asked the first question after Daniel and Susan had finished their presentation. I said that their approach seemed to be somewhat at odds with the oft-heard advice (by Buddhism and other philosophies) that desire is at the root of our unhappiness.

I wondered, couldn't embracing these nine characteristics of happy people become another "to-do" that adds on to our list of unfulfilled desires? Perhaps flowing with whatever happens, what is rather than what could be, is the way to go.

At the same time, I said (brandishing my new love), some material things undeniably make us happy -- such as my iPhone. So, what to do?

Susan offered up a pretty good answer. It's fine to enjoy things, she said, so long as we aren't devastated when we lose them. Daniel added that each of us eventually is going to lose the thing that we're most attached to right now: our body. So we've got to get used to letting go.

One last "who knew?" observation. Who knew that there was such a great healthy restaurant in Woodburn? (not us, for sure) Our dinner was prepared by Vitality, which is just inside the Wellspring front door.

Wish the restaurant was closer to us. Salem is sorely lacking in creative good-for-you menus such as Vitality sports.

Guess I'll just have to keep on practicing detachment. And eating the tofu special at Venti's, my favorite Salem eatery.

Non-shock: men see bikini-clad women as objects

Sometimes science reveals the obvious.

New research shows that, in men, the brain areas associated with handling tools and the intention to perform actions light up when viewing images of women in bikinis.

...Although consistent with conventional wisdom, the way that men may depersonalize sexual images of women is not entirely something they control. In fact, it's a byproduct of human evolution, experts say. The first male humans had an incentive to seek fertile women as the means of spreading their genes.

Guys, we can't fight evolution. So, embrace it.

George Will lies about global warming

George, how could you do it? You've been one of the few conservative columnists I could read without wondering, "What bag of untruth was that statement dragged out of?"

Yet now Will has joined the Reality Is What We Say It Is crowd, having spouted blatant lies about global warming in today's column, "Dark Green Doomsayers."

Now, lies is a strong word. It fits in this case, though -- better than mistaken, misleading, or such.

One reason: George Will is a national columnist with considerable fact-checking resources. And his piece is just ten paragraphs long. There's no excuse not to get important facts right in such a brief bit of writing.

Countering the claim that global warming is leading to a decrease in sea ice, Will said:

According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

Response of the Arctic Climate Research Center: Huh?

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.

Yes, it is. And that George Will would write a column founded on lies. Here's another one: the assertion that in the 1970s scientists were confidently predicting global cooling rather than warming.

It took me less than 30 seconds of Googling to debunk this myth. But I guess Will couldn't spend that much time on the truth.

Wikipedia:
"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s."

USA Today:
"The supposed 'global cooling' consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era."

New Scientist:
"A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then."

Here's some additional nails that have been pounded into George Will's credibility coffin. From now on I'll be looking at his column with a lot more skepticism.

"George F. Will Takes on Science, Loses Credibility"
"Will Omitted Key Context in Ice Age Quote"
"Where There's a (George) Will There's A Way ... To Deny Global Warming"

Anonymous commenting vs. revealing who we are

Since I've been actively blogging for over six years, I've seen the best and worst of people when they're able to leave anonymous comments on blog posts -- a practice I've always allowed.

It bothers me when someone hides behind a made up name -- "slugface99"-- spewing venomous insults, idiotic falsities, and profane rants into an otherwise mostly courteous blog conversation.

It warms my heart when someone reveals an intimacy about themselves -- a deep fear, longing, forbidden lust, or whatever -- that would have been impossible to share with a real name attached to it.

In a previous post I took TypePad, which hosts my blog, to task for failing to recognize sufficiently that people choose to connect on the Internet in various ways.

Some see the web mostly as a means to fashion social networks. They belong to Twitter, My Space, and Facebook. They want to have their identity recognized by those with whom they come in contact -- friends, work associates, strangers.

The push to establish profiles that carry across various web sites and networks (such as Open ID) assumes that people want to have a consistent identity in cyberspace.

Many, though, are wary of revealing too much about themselves. Like the characters on Lost, one of my favorite TV shows, they revel in the potential of being able to recreate themselves by casting aside their previous history.

So, good Libran that I am, my attitude is: let's have it both ways. Personally, I always use my real name, "Brian," when I leave a comment on a blog post or discussion group. But I understand why others don't want to.

Yesterday, columnist Mark Morford opined that anonymous commenting is destroying meaningful online dialogue.

But the coherent voices are, by and large, increasingly drowned out by the nasty, the puerile, the inane, to the point where, unless you're in the mood to have your positive mood ruined and your belief in the inherent goodness of humanity stomped like a rainbow flag in the Mormon church, there's almost no point in trying to sift through it anymore. The relentless nastiness is, quite literally, sickening.

Sure, sometimes. However, there's also a lot to like about being able to express your views anonymously, as "How Important are Nameless and Faceless comments?" points out (focus of this article is on the workplace).

Posting anonymous comments supports candid dialogue, protects individual opinions, and can increase the number of comments.

I've had terrific conversations with people I've just met, and would never see again. I could say things that I wouldn't reveal to friends or family with whom I have a history and a future.

Raw honesty is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in everyday life. Each of us puts on a persona that masks, to either a large or small degree, who we are when we're not busy pretending to be who we're not.

Too much of a good thing, though, becomes a bad thing. Occasionally I urge commenters on my blogs to speak to each other as if they were sitting together in a coffeehouse.

Even if other people didn't know who you were, you'd still treat them courteously -- just as you'd expect to be treated. You wouldn't scream, swear, or stomp off in a huff.

You'd share a moment with some fellow human beings, recognizing that expressing differing opinions doesn't require a Nuke Em! mentality.

Today I called Sid "crazy" in a comment I left on my blog post about evolution. But I would have said the same thing if I was face to face with him, and he'd claimed that God created humans just as they are, instantly -- no natural selection required.

Speak online as you'd talk to someone in person. To my mind, that's just about the only communication rule needed on the Internet.

My TypePad Connect review: thumbs down

Blogging is a big part of my life. Thus so is TypePad, the service that hosts my HinesSight and Church of the Churchless blogs.

By and large, I'm happy with TypePad. But not with their TypePad Connect service, which I tried out for a week before shutting it down when it seriously screwed up my blogs.

I've spent quite a bit of time communicating with TypePad staff about what they need to do to improve both TypePad Connect and their basic blogging service (actually, I'm a "Pro" member, several steps above "Basic").

Invariably I get a prompt, friendly reply along the lines of, "Thanks for the feedback. We're working on the problem."

That's nice. However, it'd be nicer if the problems actually were solved.

So this post is sort of an open letter to TypePad, written with the hope that a more public airing of my gripes will result in more action than I've seen so far. Likely it'll be fairly lengthy, because I've got quite a bit to say.

(If this subject is already terminally boring you, I'll reward your interest in getting this far into the post with links to some Sports Illustrated 2009 Swimsuit Issue photos, here and here, before you head off to more interesting ports of call in the blogosphere.)

I'll begin with my qualifications: my first TypePad post dates from January 2003, so I've got more than six years of mostly-daily blogging experience. My two blogs are approaching 1,800,000 page views. They average about 1,000 page views a day.

I write about all kinds of stuff, leaning toward serious (or semi-serious) subjects. Meaning of life. Current affairs/politics. Oregon land use issues. The etiquette of staring at a rose cleavage tattoo (hey, that's an semi-serious topic to me).

Now... my gripes and what I hope TypePad will do about them.

TypePad Connect (TPC) isn't ready for prime-time.
I figured that the commenting features in TypePad Connect would be an improvement over the current system, which has its flaws. After trying TPC for a week on my Church of the Churchless blog, I found that this beta release is a step backward, not forward.

Now, TypePad keeps reminding me about the "beta." Meaning, TPC is still in testing, with bugs being worked out. OK, yet TypePad is marketing TPC like crazy, urging not only TypePad subscribers to sign up for it but also people using other services (like Blogger).

I waited more than two months after the beta release before trying out TypePad Connect, figuring that the most serious problems would have been fixed by then.

Wrong.

Blog visitors couldn't read the most recent comments on posts where the comments stretched over more than one page (TypePad allows only 50 comments on a page). The sidebar on my blog wouldn't show up. Lengthy comments would be "previewed" in a small box with scroll bars that didn't look at all like the final posting. There was no way to edit a comment after it was posted, even by me.  Replying to a comment via TPC's emailed notification led me to the original post, not the comment I wanted to reply to, which I had to find on my own. Comments weren't visible to Google and other search engines. Etc.

Worst of all, my blog clearly was becoming much less stable than before. TypePad Connect was like some sort of alien presence that threatened the existence of my dearly beloved Church of the Churchless.

It felt great to uninstall TypePad Connect last night. Cleansing.

Thankfully, the reversion went smoothly. I'd copied 42 pages worth of comments that had come in during the frustrating week of dealing with TypePad Connect problems before clicking on "the get rid of TPC" button. So far, it looks like none of those comments have been lost.

That's good. But I still fault TypePad for releasing TypePad Connect when it is so flawed. Others agree, having made the same complaint on a customer service blog. For example, Rosangel Valenti said:

From information that we've seen on other blogs hosted by Typepad, this issue has been raised before by some of your customers, as far back as October of 2008. It's staggering that it's still going on now. Also unbelievable that your company dared to roll out the new software not only without warning or consultation, but still containing four-month-old problems.

TypePad needs to focus on improving its current service
For years I've been telling TypePad staff, including the head honcho, about relatively simple improvements that need to be made. After all, blogging isn't rocket science.

A blogger like me needs to be able to compose posts smoothly. He then wants blog visitors to be able to share comments easily, and learn what other commenters are saying. Both his words and those of his visitors have to be visible to Google and other search engines, so people looking for info on a subject that's been written about can find a pertinent blog post.

I've told TypePad staff that they should bow down to the Apple model each day. Apple products -- like my iPhone, iPod, and MacBook -- are aimed at letting people do what they want to do without technology being an impediment.

That is, with Apple products I'm usually not aware of software and hardware whirring away. I just do something, almost always without much fuss. With TypePad though (and especially TypePad Connect), I frequently think, "Why the heck is this happening?"

Such is a sign of bad design.

Examples: (1) Blog visitors want to read the most recent comment on a post. TypePad makes them click their way on a "more comments" link, 50 comments at a time, through page after page on heavily-commented posts. (2) Blog visitors want to read the most recent comments on all posts. No way to do that, since TypePad only shows ten comments in the sidebar and there's no way for a blogger to modify that number. (3) Blog visitors want to edit a post after they notice a typo or mistake. They have to email me with a request to make the change, since TypePad doesn't allow editing by the person who wrote a comment. (4) Blog visitors want to read one of the ten comments shown in the sidebar. Clicking on it doesn't lead to the comment, but only to the post, where they have to maneuver their way through hundreds of comments, potentially, to find the one they're looking for.

Over and over, for years, I've asked TypePad to make changes that would fix these problems. This should have been done before a brand new (and flawed) commenting system was rolled out in the form of TypePad Connect.

It's the Microsoft Windows mentality at work. When I was a Windows user, before moving to a Mac, all I wanted was a stable, easy-to-use operating system that didn't crash on me.

Instead, Microsoft would release upgrades with more fancy bells and whistles -- Vista! -- instead of getting existing software right. By contrast, I've found that with Apple products often you don't have a whole lot of choices, because Apple knows what you want to do and makes that possible in a direct manner.

(The Time Machine back-up software, to offer an example, has an extremely minimalist control panel. Apple knows that what you want to do is back up your files, not have the ability to screw things up by choosing how to back up your files.)

TypePad, emulate how Starbucks listens to customers
I've told TypePad staff that they should check out how Starbucks solicits and responds to customer suggestions on My Starbucks Idea. Very nicely done.

You know better than anyone else what you want from Starbucks. So tell us. What's your Starbucks Idea? Revolutionary or simple-we want to hear it. Share your ideas, tell us what you think of other people's ideas and join the discussion. We're here, and we're ready to make ideas happen. Let's get started.

There's a four step process:

Share. Post your Starbucks Idea - from ways we could improve to things we've never even thought of.

Vote. Check out other people's ideas and vote on the ones you like best. The community votes. The community decides.

Discuss. Talk about ideas with other customers and our Starbucks Idea Partners and help make them even better.

See. This is the proof. See which of your ideas were the most popular and watch as we take action.

Given that TypePad Connect (and TypePad in general) supposedly is about fostering a sense of bloggish community, it's sort of strange that a coffee purveyor has a better feel for how to relate to its customers.

Again, I find TypePad staff to be wonderfully responsive, open, and friendly. However, somehow this doesn't translate into needed changes being made.

Somewhere in the organization there's a blockage between hearing from subscribers about problems, and the problems being resolved. There isn't a seamless Share - Vote - Discuss - See flow between suggestion and action as there is with Starbucks.

So I keep on griping, TypePad staff keep on telling me that the issue is being worked on, nothing happens, so I keep on griping. And so we go. Not the most effective way of spending time for either the staff or me.

One problem, and its a significant one, is that active, long-term bloggers such as moi are pretty much locked-in to their blog service. The Great God Google treats me quite kindly, given my lengthy commitment to making daily wordy offerings to the blogosphere.

To shift all my posts elsewhere, thereby leading to countless "URL not found" messages: almost unthinkable.

So TypePad and me are wedded for now. We've got to make the best of our relationship, because I don't see how I can walk out the door no matter how much I feel neglected.

(On the flip side, I feel for TypePad staff. They have to deal with bloggers, who are some of the most outspoken people in the world. TypePad employees often must feel like they're herding cats who are equipped for megaphones that allow them to loudly meow, "Hey! Not this way! And I want my salmon kibble now!")

I'll end by reiterating that I like TypePad. It's an excellent blogging service. No one would go wrong signing up for it.

TypePad just needs to get its act together a bit more. It should focus on improving basic blogging features rather than rolling out flashy buggy non-improvements like TypePad Connect.

And do a better job of listening to its customers, who are fully capable of pointing in the directions the company needs to move.

Let's make Obama Philosopher-King

I'm ready to turn over control of our county to Barack Obama. For a while. Not permanently.

It just seems like we need a really wise Philosopher-King right now, one dude who's in charge of things and doesn't have to deal with fools in Congress.

In time of war we have a Commander in Chief. This economic crisis deserves a similar temporary turning over of leadership control to a single individual who does whatever is needed to preserve and protect the United States.

Now, I realize this is a fantasy.

Minor details like the Constitution prevent the President from ignoring Congress and issuing Philosopher-King edicts. But I wish such could happen.

Yesterday it was inspiring to watch Obama handle his first presidential press conference with confidence, dexterity, eloquence, and aplomb. Paul Begala, CNN analyst, summed up the difference between Obama and Bush:

It was a very serious press conference about serious issues.  And I give him very high marks.  Yeah, he talked a little long, but you know what a relief after George W. Bush.  Watching Bush complete a sentence is like watching a fat, drunk guy cross an icy road…you just knew he wasn’t going to make it.  And this guy has at least some command over the issues.

Well, much more than "some command." Obama had an in-depth grasp of what needs to be done to get us out of our current economic malaise.

I've got a lot of confidence that Obama, backed up by his all-star administration team, could lead the United States into a dramatic recovery within a few years. But right now he's having to move in a direction set by people with minds much less savvy than his.

Namely, members of Congress.

Being one of the millions who contributed to Obama's campaign, I just got a message from Organizing for America, which has taken over his vast email list. It began with:

Last night, President Obama gave his first-ever prime time press conference to call for immediate action on his economic recovery plan. Today, the Senate voted to pass the President's plan.

Wrong possessives.

It's not the President's plan. It sprouted from the semi-competent psyches of the House Democratic leadership, then was pruned and twisted out of shape by even more clueless Senators.

Obama could have done much better. And should have. Apparently his vision of collegial bipartisanship stopped him from saying at the start, "This is the way the stimulus bill has to be."

Wish he had.

Who suspected on election night last November, when Democrats surged to victory, that three Senate Republicans would be calling the shots on an economic stimulus plan in February 2009?

I don't want Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter deciding how to get the United States economy back on track. Yet there they are, warning that if they don't get their moderate Republican way, they won't vote for the stimulus bill and supply the sixty votes needed to get it past a filibuster.

On the front page of the Portland Oregonian today I saw a headline that said, "Compromise in D.C. cuts money Oregon officials desperately want."

The story talks about how $400 million for school construction, teacher salaries, and such won't be coming to Oregon if the three Republicans aren't overruled. Hopefully they will be.

A New York Times editorial gets it right.

When members of the House and Senate sit down this week to craft a final version of their differing bills, they must include the most-effective provisions — those that provide powerful stimulus and help those Americans who are most in need.

There is a decent deal to be had in negotiations. Whether Congress and the administration get there will depend a lot on Mr. Obama’s leadership and his insistence on a better bill.

As does Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, who called the moderate Senate Republicans "the destructive center."

What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?

A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.

Right on. Obama should do the Philosopher-King thing and say that he'll veto any stimulus bill that doesn't do X, Y, and Z.

Let the Republicans take the responsibility for pushing the economy off a cliff (or rather, off a steeper one). I suspect their filibuster threat would evaporate. If not, so be it.

As the Times editorial said:

For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”

No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.

Keep resorts out of the Metolius River Basin

This should be a no-brainer: preserving a uniquely special place in Oregon -- the Metolius River Basin recreation area -- that is threatened by two large destination resorts.

But brains are in short supply among some who approve of this potential travesty.

As noted in my 2007 "Save the Metolius from destination resorts," Jefferson County commissioner Bill Bellamy came up with this astoundingly poor reason for allowing about 3,000 homes and a couple of golf courses to be built near the Metolius:

"Whether or not you like what destination resorts have done, it's phenomenally significant what they do to property tax revenues."

This shows the mentality that led Jefferson County to change its zoning of the area to allow the resorts, even though the vast majority of people who live in the Camp Sherman area were opposed.

In the 2007 legislative session a Metolius-saving bill, Senate Bill 30, died after Gov. Kulongoski said that he wanted to let the land use planning process go ahead before intervening.

I noted that even horses were for SB 30, yet opponents of the resorts didn't get a fair shake at the hearing that I attended on the bill.

Now its 2009 and the Governor is doing the right thing, even though an Oregonian editorial failed to realize this. Kulongoski isn't playing "red light, green light" with the would-be developers, because he said back in 2007 that if state agencies told him that current laws can't protect the Metolius Basin, something needed to be done.

Bob Stacey, 1000 Friends of Oregon executive director, cleared up the editorial board's confusion in his own follow-up opinion piece, "Protecting the Metolius."

It is true that during the 2007 session Gov. Ted Kulongoski signaled that he would not -- at that time -- support proposed legislation that offered special protection for the Metolius.

But The Oregonian suggests that "the developers naturally took the governor's stand as a sign he would allow them to pursue their resorts under existing land-use law."

That reasoning ignores the fact that on June 22, 2007, the governor instructed state agencies to report back to him on whether existing state law would be sufficient to protect the Metolius Basin. What the governor heard back was that existing laws would not fully protect the critical natural resources of the Metolius Basin from harmful effects of resort development.

As a result of these reviews, the governor concluded that additional protection for the Metolius is warranted. We agree. We find it odd to suggest that the governor should not consider every tool in the toolkit to protect this unique treasure for all Oregonians. We applaud his leadership.

So now Kulongoski has asked the Department of Land Conservation and Development to consider whether the Metolius River Basin should be designated an "Area of Critical State Concern."

Public hearings have been scheduled next week in Sisters and Madras. Comments on the proposal also can be emailed. If you're a lover of the Metolius, as my wife and I are, let DLCD know that you don't want this beautiful area to be ruined by giant destination resorts.

If the Area of Critical State Concern process doesn't work out, the Governor has a backup plan: legislation that would stop the resorts. Central Oregon Landwatch and others also have succeeded in getting the Oregon Supreme Court to accept an appeal of the Jefferson County rezoning.

So one way or another, I'm hopeful that the Metolius will be protected.

It'd be a shame to allow the greed of a few county commissioners for more property tax revenues to trash an area that has been officially designated "wild and scenic."

Adding 3,000 homes in and near the Metolius Basin, where only a few hundred people live now, doesn't sound like a good way to preserve a wild and scenic river.

(Click below for an email message I got from Central Oregon Landwatch, describing the upcoming hearings and the need for people to comment on the Area of Critical State Concern plan.)

Stimulus bill debate shows weirdness of Republicans

I'm doing my best to be open-mindedly bi-partisan as I follow the debate over the stimulus bill, just as my man, President Obama, is asking of the country.

But it's tough. Real tough. I listen to Senate Republicans talk about how they see the economy getting back on track and I can't help but think ... that's so freaking weird!

They don't seem to live in the real world.

Today I heard Sen. John Thune holding forth on cable news about his utterly wacky plan to scrap the entire $936 billion Senate stimulus bill and replace it with an equal amount of tax rebates for 182 million Americans.

Thune said that individuals could spend the money better that government could.

When his interviewer pointed out that previous tax rebates intended to stimulate the economy didn't do very much, because people saved much of the windfall rather than spending it, Thune said that saving it would be fine also, since banks need to be recapitalized -- lacking money for loans.

That's not true, of course. Banks are sitting on lots of money. They're reluctant to make loans for other reasons.

The biggest Republican weirdness, though, is the overall view conservatives have of our society.

Like Thune, they only see individuals merrily spending their way along, buying whatever they like -- big screen TV! a new car! golf clubs! -- without any connection to a larger community.

It's ridiculous to think that individuals always can spend money more wisely than government.

People buy lots of useless crap. I do it all the time. When my taxes go into state or federal coffers, there's a greater chance that something valuable will be bought that benefits everybody.

Like improved roads that we all travel on. Like better schools that our children are educated in. Like medical research that will enable all of us to live longer, healthier lives. Like green energy technologies that will help the country be much more independent of foreign oil.

There's no "us" in the conservative Republican view of the U.S. It's all about me, me, me -- letting individuals spend money however they want to, while the infrastructure fabric that binds our culture together becomes more and more threadbare.

I don't want to live in a Me FIrst society. Most Americans don't. They recognize that we all sink or swim together, which is why Obama was elected so handily last November.

Yes, we can.

We can pass a stimulus bill that will help everybody in this country, not just a favored few. We can remember -- after eight long years of Bush era forgetting -- that every individual is part of a societal whole.

Yes, we can.

Judge Panner issues stay of Measure 37 waiver ruling

Here's some good news for the Oregon land use system: the federal judge, Owen Panner, who ruled back in November that Measure 37 waivers in Jackson County are still valid, has issued a stay of his ruling.
Download Judge Panner - Order Issuing Stay Pending Appeal

So elected officials in Jackson County don't have to worry about being caught between Panner's contention that the county waivers of land use laws are still in effect, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development position that no development can take place because necessary state waivers aren't in effect.

This case is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Hopefully it will be overturned.

Big Look legislation gets trashed at hearing

Yesterday I was pleased to be one of about three dozen people who roundly said, "No way!" to the Big Look task force's attempt to weaken Oregon's highly successful land use planning system.

As noted previously by someone I highly respect (namely, me), the task force spent a lot of time, money, and energy coming up with astoundingly wrong-headed proposed legislation for the 2009 session.

Somehow the Big Look managed to simultaneously conclude that: (1) Oregon's current land use laws are doing a great job protecting farm and forest land, and (2) the laws need to be changed so less farm and forest land is protected.

Huh?

This was the entirely justified reaction of virtually every person who took the opportunity to testify (for two minutes, more or less) before the House Land Use Committee public hearing on HB 2229.

[Update: The committee has scheduled two additional public hearings on HB 2229, both on Tuesday, February 10. More info. about the hearings is here.]

I was at the hearing for 80 minutes. During that time I can recall only two people speaking in favor of the bill. More than thirty trashed it in various degrees.

Some parts of the proposed legislation were viewed as acceptable, or even desirable. But sections 5-8 received an almost unanimous thumbs-down from a wide range of groups and individuals.

Including me. Here's the testimony that I submitted on behalf of our neighborhood's Keep Our Water Safe committee.
Download HB 2229 testimony PDF

I focused, as did quite a few others, on how it'd be a really bad idea to allow counties the option of redefining farm and forest land so subdivisions could sprout instead of crops and trees.

Politicians (county commissioners) would be lobbied by aspiring real estate developers to rezone their farm or forest properties. The last thing Oregon needs is increased politicization of our land use system. Yet the Big Look task force has called for just that.

There were quite a few moving moments at the hearing.

Some people spoke of how their relatives had come on wagon trains over the Oregon trail to settle here. They are still farming the ancestral land, and are deeply concerned about dismantling Oregon agriculture so urban sprawl can Californiaize our beautiful landscape.

Along that line, another person said that he'd escaped the Santa Clara valley many years ago (as did I, having gone to college at San Jose State before moving to Portland for graduate work). He didn't want to see Oregon become what he'd fled from.

I enjoyed the remarks of a man from southern Oregon, which were along the lines of:

"Coos and Curry counties are some of the last holdouts of the pioneer spirit. People there don't like to be told what to do. County commissioners don't appreciate directives coming from Washington, D.C. Nor from Salem. That's why HB 2229 shouldn't be passed -- the legislature can't allow these guys to screw up the south coast."

Today the Salem Statesman Journal ran a story about the hearing. I left a comment on the SJ web site critiquing reporter Peter Wong's coverage. He fell prey to the "fair and balanced" B.S., where one quote from an opponent has to be balanced by one quote from a supporter, even though over 90% of the testimony at the hearing was against HB 2229.

[Update: got an email today with info. about Henry Pir, the guy quoted in the SJ story who claims that he isn't able to replace a house that burned down. I was told:

He states that he "just wants to rebuild a house that burned". What B.S.
What he forgets to mention is that:
1) It burned sometime around 1990.
2) That was two owners ago.
The county turned him down twice and then, wouldn't you know it, the commissioners gave him the OK. This was appealed to LUBA by neighbors and Pir threw in the towel early apparently knowing of certain failure.

Such is largely confirmed by minutes of a Marion County Board of Commissioners meeting.
Download 050708BoardSessionMinutes 

So this actually shows that the land use system is operating fairly, but that local elected officials often try to grant certain favored people a dispensation from rules that should apply to everybody -- which is precisely why HB 2229 is such a bad idea.]

Here's an excerpt from my testimony, most of which I read to the committee before getting the "your two minutes are up" signal.

Caution: universe may be much vaster than it appears

It's good to keep things in perspective. Sure, the economic times are tough. Most of us feel like we're being painfully squeezed by circumstances not of our own making.

We do our best to keep balanced, hoping to maintain the equilibrium of the little corner of the cosmos that each of us calls "me."

Well, there's truth in the conception that the world can be found in a grain of sand. Or, a single psyche.

But it's also wise to keep in mind how small each of us is when compared to the unimaginable vastness of the universe.

Which, according to a recent New Scientist article ("Another universe comes calling") may be much vaster than suspected.
Download Another universe comes calling

Clusters of galaxies have been clocked at 1000 kilometers a second, racing toward a certain patch of sky at a unexplainably high speed. Here's an image from the article that explains what may be going on. (click to enlarge)
Note the relatively small circle in the middle of the cosmic landscape. That's the observable universe, with a radius, I believe, of some 13.7 billion light years (the age of the universe).

Much further out is the cosmic horizon, 45 billion light years from an observer. This is how far away the most distant object we could see today is. It's well over 13.7 billion light years because the universe has been expanding much faster than light since the big bang.

So (I think I've got this right)...by the time light from a hugely distant galaxy reaches us, the galaxy has zoomed much further away. It seems considerably closer than it really is.

On the other hand -- and this is the mind-blowing part of the article for me -- there may be vast expanses of the universe beyond the cosmic horizon that are having an effect of what lies within the horizon.

These expanses are indicated by the "mountain" range of dense space-time shown on the right side of the image. Some scientists suspect that an entity outside of the observable universe is pulling on the galaxy clusters, causing them to flow in that direction.

Such is far from being proven.

Still, I love the notion that so much of the cosmos is over the cosmic horizon, forever beyond our knowledge (unless we could travel faster than light) yet impacting our corner of the universe nonetheless.

Back when I was working in the health policy arena, I gave a talk to medical school students on death with dignity issues. As an icebreaker (somehow I managed to fit this into my presentation) I started off by asking them, "Who knows about how many galaxies there are in the universe?"

Nobody even hazarded a guess. And these were science students, in medical school! How much less, I'm sure, do regular people know about our place in the cosmos.

Answer: likely at least 125 billion galaxies; probably many more. And an average galaxy has around 100 million stars.

So we're very, very small in the big scheme of things. And that scheme is much bigger than we'll ever know if the New Scientist article is correct -- as it likely is to some degree.

I don't know if this knowledge helps when our car won't start, or our back aches.

But I enjoy pondering how insignificant my worries are in light of the ever-expanding and ultimately unknowable cosmos.