HinesSight

Starbucks sucks with its high priced wi-fi

Being a frequent Starbucks customer, I've noted laptop users in the ubiquitous stores tuning in to what I assumed was free Wi-Fi. After all, these days even the most humble coffee house usually offers a complimentary Internet connection, so why wouldn't this corporate giant?

Greed, I guess.

Because after my router decided to stop routing this morning, I packed up my ThinkPad and took it with me to the West Salem Starbucks, where, after chatting for a bit with friends, I opened it up for some well-deserved Internet access.

Well-deserved, because my habitual grande nonfat vanilla latte sets me back $4.00, after I plunk the sixty cents I get back in change for the $3.40 drink into the tip jar.

And I've bought a bunch of them over the years, each contributing to Starbucks' profit margin. But today when I needed twenty minutes of Wi-Fi access with my latte, the only web site I could reach was T-Mobile's HotSpot page.

Where I learned that I could use my laptop all I wanted at Starbucks for a "mere" $29.99 a month, or $9.99 for one day's access. One hour would cost me $6.00, even if I just needed a few minutes of connect time.

Everybody at my table, all regular Starbucks customers, was surprised. Shocked, even.

I can go into downtown Salem's humble Coffee House Café and enjoy free Wi-Fi, even though this establishment neither has "bucks" in its name nor nearly as many in its cash register.

Returning home, I figured out how to bypass my recalcitrant router and found quite a few others dismayed by Starbucks' squeeze out every nickel from patrons corporate policy.

Unhappy customers can be found here, here, and here. Starbucks' defense of their price gouging was pretty lame. Basically it was that we have lots of locations where we can rip you off for Wi-Fi access, so be grateful for the convenience.

I read that one argument for charging Internet users is to keep people from hanging out at tables all day long for the price of a cup of java.

Well, somehow independent coffee houses with free Internet deal with this problem (or non-problem). And as this guy suggested:

If I ran Starbucks I would drop the T-Mobile partnership and provide a Wi-Fi WPA key on the receipt that's good for 90 minutes with any purchase over $2.50. That way they wouldn't have the problem with people hanging out all day without buying anything just to use the Wi-Fi and it's also certain to increase sales.

He should be running the Starbucks marketing department. Because I'm vowing to take my latte business elsewhere, whenever possible.

I like to get a latte after my Wednesday Tai Chi class. There's a Starbucks half a block away. But the Coffee House Café is just a short walk further. To me it's worth a few extra steps to stand up against a corporate rip-off.

I need my lattes. And I also need my Internets. Once I've paid for my caffeine fix, I shouldn't be gouged again for my broadband addiction.

Hopefully Starbucks will come to realize that treating customers right is a surer route to long-term success than squeezing them for every nickel and dime (hourly Internet access is ten cents a minute).

The Starbucks stock price has dropped a lot this year, obviously due to bad Wi-Fi karma. Open your eyes, Starbucks management.

Salem Tango stimulated by a San Diegan

Amazing! Last night Salem actually seemed interesting for a couple of hours.

We pushed aside the tables in the downtown Beanery coffee house and danced away on a nice wood floor while Tango music played over the sound system.

It took a San Diegan, though, to wake up sleepy Salem.

That would be Matt, the guy in the middle of the photo who distinguished himself by (1) being by far the youngest amongst us, and (2) actually knowing how to dance Argentine Tango.

The rest of us ranged from rusty beginner/intermediates (Karen, in middle, plus Laurel and me, on the right), to Tim and Jan on the left – neighbors of ours who claimed they'd never danced at all before, but looked pretty darn good after just a few minutes of Matt's high quality instruction.

Matt is visiting relatives here and emailed me after coming across my blog posts about Argentine Tango in Salem.

Which, after organized classes ended in 2006, is as hidden as many other exotic pursuits are in this town, whose main claim to fame is that it lies between Portland and Eugene.

So I told Matt that there wasn't any place to dance Tango. He responded that this was fine; he'd be happy to just get together for a Salem – San Diego Argentine Tango exchange.

Since this would be pretty much a one-way street, given his much greater knowledge of this challenging dance, I morphed his offer into an introduction to Tango.

I learned a lot in the three hours we spent together. Matt has a nice dance philosophy. A focus on simple basics rather than complex patterns. That's the authentic Argentine Tango way, but it's easy to get side-tracked.

You can look pretty darn good dancing Tango by just walking. In fact, "just walking" is the essence of Tango.

One of our instructors, Carlos, liked to say that it's all about a man walking with a woman so she will fall in love with him (for the duration of the dance, at least). He can't be too forceful, and he can't be too diffident.

That's the challenge of leading. Which is matched by the challenge of following.

Since Argentine Tango is highly spontaneous and improvisational, there are few patterned moves where the leader and follower can go on autopilot.

You've got to be focused in the moment, and the music, to make the dance work – staying connected with your partner, as well as your own center.

I enjoyed Matt's story about how he dances with a woman regularly in San Diego who started Tango classes about the same time he did. They know each other well, but there's always something new to experience with Tango (as with life).

Matt said that she usually dances in close embrace, with her eyes closed, as women often do in Argentine Tango. He can feel her heart beating, her breath, how the muscles in her face change when she smiles or briefly opens her eyes.

During one song he felt a "fire" in his chest. An energy. Outwardly he was dancing as he always did; inwardly he was leading with more Tango passion.

When they stopped, she said "there was something different about you." She could feel it, just as he could feel what she was experiencing.

Moments like those are the magic of Tango. I've felt them only a few times. But once felt, they keep you coming back for more.

Matt was asked if Tango dancers typically dance other styles, or if they concentrate on Tango. He said that usually Tango is it. The attraction to this dance is so strong, there's little or no desire to waltz, or swing, or fox trot, or whatever.

Understandable. Very much so. As you can see for yourself…

Measure 49 not threatened by Corey case

There's some wishful thinking going on in the little minds over at Oregonians in Action, who hope that Santa will bring them a Measure 49 demolishing (or at least, limiting) court case.

Corey v. Department of Land Conservation and Development is a current favorite, grandiosely (and inaccurately) described in the most recent OIA newsletter under "Is There Hope on the Horizon for Measure 37 Claimants?"

Short answer: almost certainly not. I say this not as an attorney, but as someone who knows how competent attorneys view the Corey case.

Which is a long way from how OIA sees a ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals that's been appealed to the State Supreme Court. OIA says:

If the Court of Appeals' decision in Corey stands, then Measure 37 claimants cannot lose their rights, because those rights are protected by the constitution. Which would in turn mean that decisions made pursuant to Measure 37 would remain unaffected by Measure 49's passage.

Contrast this wildly exaggerated statement with how an Oregon business litigation blog described the Corey decision.

After reviewing U.S. Supreme Court precedent on constitutionally-protected interests, the court concluded that the DLCD created an entitlement to benefits when it accepted the Measure 37 claim, and that Corey was entitled to notice and a meaningful hearing before DLCD could refuse to waive any of the regulations. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the matter as a contested case.

So the court simply ruled that DLCD had to go through a particular process before determining the extent of what Corey, et. al. were entitled to under Measure 37. DLCD didn't grant a hearing; the court said DLCD should have.

All this has nothing, or at most, very little, to do with whether Measure 49 is null and void because it takes away supposed Measure 37 property rights.

It's well established that government and the people can put into effect and modify land use laws. That's what Measure 37 did. That's what Measure 49 did. The Corey case doesn't alter that fact.

As long as I'm writing about Measure 37, I might as well take this opportunity to trash a 95 year old woman who proves that you're never too old to act like a jerk.

Yes, Dorothy English is back in the news. She was the poster child for Measure 37 back in 2004, and she's still throwing a fuss over how she isn't able to do exactly what she wants with her 20 acres.

English has gotten permission under Measure 37 to put eight home sites on her property, which is what she wanted. And Measure 49 still will allow her those sites. All she has to do is prove the loss of value that she's claimed all along.

But English also wants to be exempted from current building standards, including health and safety requirements involving emergency vehicle access and other issues. What a baby. It's all about me, me, me, regardless of the effect on neighbors and the general public.

Over at his Land Use Watch blog, Peter Bray had a great response to English's ridiculous expectation that she should be able to do whatever was allowed in 1953:

In 1953, my relatives could have developed an open-pit cyanide leach mine on farmland. But, like in the case of Madam English, various commonsense regulations now forbid such activity, or require that certain basic safety precautions are followed.

In 1953, I could drink a six pack of beer, drive without a seat belt to the local movies with my newborn in the driver's seat (with no baby seat), smoke a few cigarettes (with the windows up), go eat at a restaurant for a couple of hours (leaving the baby in the car), and come back, after some more booze, and drive on home. Nowadays, darnit, I can't! And that ain't fair!

In 1953, relatives owned stock in Asbestos mining companies. A bunch of hooey regulations passed subsequently piping on and on about "health hazards" of asbestos. So the stock dropped. But, shoot, they bought that stock before any of these crazy government regulations, so shouldn't the government have to compensate us for their restrictive regulations?!

Another agnostic Christmas eve

Well, just as newspapers reprint the "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" piece every year, I'll start my own agnostic tradition and link back to my 2006 post, "An agnostic Taoist on Christmas Eve."

Not much has changed.

We're still heading to a vegetarian buffet at Salem's Marco Polo restaurant tomorrow. We're still irritated by Salvation Army bell ringers, Christmas music in stores, and the prevailing cultural sentiment that if you don't believe in Jesus, somehow you're impoverished during the holiday season.

That's ridiculous. We feel overwhelmingly grateful that unlike the vast majority of people in the world, we don't subscribe to religious fantasies that have caused an astounding amount of death and suffering over the millennia.

This morning I celebrated my non-Christian faith by re-reading part of Sam Harris' "The End of Faith." It made me ever so happy that I wouldn't be going to church tomorrow.

My purpose in this chapter has been to intimate, in as concise a manner as possible, some of the terrible consequences that have arisen, logically and inevitably, out of Christian faith. Unfortunately, this catalog of horrors could be elaborated on indefinitely.

Auschwitz, the Cathar heresy, the witch hunts – these phrases signify depths of human depravity and human suffering that would surely elude description were a writer to set himself no other task. As I have cast a very wide net in the present chapter, I can only urge readers who may feel they have driven past a roadside accident at full throttle to consult the literature on these subjects.

Such extracurricular studies will reveal that the history of Christianity is principally a story of mankind's misery and ignorance rather than of its requited love of God.

So we'll open presents tomorrow. And have many good thoughts in our minds. They just won't include any fantasies, such as the notion that a man born of a virgin died for our sins because his Father in Heaven demanded a sacrificial human lamb.

Good god. Civilization has progressed so far in the past two thousand years. And also, when it comes to religion, not an inch.

[Christmas day update: I love this well-written, light-hearted, thoughtful piece posted at Daily Kos, "A Dog at Christmas." It's right on both about dogs and how the holidays should be celebrated, if you don't accept the Christian dogma.

To wit, look at all the Christmas trappings -- mangers, trees, baby Jesus, lights, etc. -- as a dog would. As interesting sensory phenomena without added meaning.

Someone emailed me today, calling me an agnostic hypocrite for celebrating Christmas in the minimal fashion we do. I see his point, sort of. But I told him that I'm not celebrating anything religious when I give myself or someone else a present.

Similarly, I'm not celebrating the resurrection of Jesus when I eat a chocolate bunny at Easter. It's possible to go along with some cultural traditions without buying into the whole crazy religious scene. Freedom means being able to pick and choose, not be bound by "all or none."]

2007 Christmas Letter released to an eagerly awaiting world

Here it is, world! What you've been waiting for to complete the Christmas season: Laurel and Brian's 2007 Holiday Letter.

Download 2007_christmas_letter.pdf

Download 2007_christmas_letter.doc
(shared in both PDF and Word formats)

By "world," of course, I mean the subset of Earth's 6.3 billion people who look forward to the wise, witty, and moving sentiments we express in our annual letter.

Not being Christians, I prefer the term "Holiday letter." Yet as a worshipper of Google, whose search engine is attuned to "Christmas letter," I shamelessly have used those words in the title of this post.

If you read the letter, as you should, you'll see that it features:

--photos of my granddaughter and not-so-fond memories of my daughter's one and only college award
--an update on our blogging and dogging
--our exposure, which wasn't entirely flattering, on KATU television news this year

I always enjoy writing our Holiday Letter, particularly after it's finished.

Last night it took a strong cup of coffee to ramp up my brain into a sufficiently caffeinated state to figure out how to flow text around photos in Word 2007, which, though not completely intuitive, sure is a heck of a lot easier to do than in Word 2003.

I concluded the letter, using a humble "we" (though, as usual, I wrote the whole thing), with these thoughts – which now go out to the entire world of the blogosphere with the same good wishes.

We're writing this on the solstice, Dec. 21. From now on, there's more light each day. May this be true for all of us in 2008: more light, more brightness, more energy, more love.

TypePad thinks my comment about comment spam is spam

Ah, how marvelous became my blog's hall of mirrors after TypePad, the hosting service, had the not-so-bright idea to juice up its spam comment filter.

Absolutely legitimate comments got unceremoniously moved into a spam folder, unbeknownst to me and countless other bloggers.

Until the unbeknownst became knowst when I heard from an upset visitor to my other blog asking why I was censoring several of his recent comments.

I had no idea what he was talking about.

But then I logged onto TypePad and saw a mention of how they were thanking people for letting them know that their comment spam filter "upgrade" (better termed a disaster) was filtering over-zealously.

No kidding. Because when I tried to post a comment on one of my posts where most of the excessive filtering had taken place, my own comment about the comment spam problem was marked as comment spam.

Far out. Into the looking glass. A hall of mirrors. I felt like the White Rabbit:

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead

Something is wrong, deeply wrong, when the mass of web surfers and bloggers have to put up with so much crap because of a few idiots who get their jollies by leaving inanely obvious pitches for their products on a post.

"Loved what you said. It was great." I then glance at the URL signature and see it's something like www.cheapmortagenow.com , or whatever.

It takes me just a minute or so to delete it, but I shouldn't have to spend even that much time. Or go through the hassle of having my own comment verified as being valid.

I don't understand why invading the privacy of someone's personal computer doesn't carry the same legal penalty as invading someone's personal living space. Because my computer is where I live for much of the day.

Yet S.O.B.s can try to put spyware, adware, spam, viruses, or other crap on my personal computer property when this would be a big no-no if they walked onto my personal home property and attempted the same sort of thing.

Another irritant: some important email messages got flagged as spam by Gmail and languished unnoticed in my account's spam folder for a few days until the sender asked me, "Why haven't you responded to what I sent you?"

Well, because spam filters are so idiotic they flag absolutely innocent messages, while still allowing pitches for Viagra and other "male enhancement" products to enter my inbox daily.

I don't know what the solution is. So I can't really blame TypePad and Gmail for doing what they can, albeit imperfectly, to minimize spam's impact.

Still, when my own comment about spam is marked as spam, that's a sign we're heading toward a cyberspace black hole singularity where everything normal has been sucked into oblivion and the only content on the Internet is warnings about the content on the Internet.

India gets a cool new computer before U.S.

It's a sign of the globalization times. And of the United States' technological decline.

Lenovo, a Chinese company which bought IBM's Personal Computing Division in 2005, has started to get into the home computer market.

I'm interested, because my wife and I each use Lenovo-made ThinkPad notebooks that still bear the IBM logo. We like them. They're rock solid and nicely designed with a great feeling keyboard.

Further, Consumer Reports rates Apple and Lenovo as the computer companies with the best support and most trouble-free products. So I've been perusing Lenovo's one and only notebook aimed at home/home office users, the Y410.

I'd like a computer with better multimedia capabilities. And Vista. (Mac addicts: I've seriously considered a PowerBook but have my reasons for sticking with Windows.)

But the Lenovo Y410, which is sold only through retailers like Office Depot, has some drawbacks. Like, the smallish 14.1 inch display. And sound that doesn't seem deserving of a "Dolby Home Theatre" description.

Plus, it looks pretty much like my ThinkPad. Utilitarian. Lacking in cool.

So I decided to Google my way into any news about forthcoming Lenovo notebooks aimed at home users. I hit a blank for a while. Then, Eureka!

There it was. A search result that included the terms "Lenovo Y510, the ultimate entertainer" and "boasting to be a way cool entertainment PC."

The only problem was another word: "India."

Yes, the Lenovo Y510 notebook is prominently featured on the company's India home page. And I could learn all about the three Y510 models, which range from Rs. 45990 ($1,164) to Rs. 58990 ($1,494).

I liked the look of the computer so much, I even checked into ordering it. I found a web page with a drop down menu for states that looked promising. Only problem was, the states had names like Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.

Browsing further, I learned that currently the Y510 is available in India/South Asia. So people can get it in Afghanistan and Nepal. But not in the United States.

Hopefully that'll change soon. I'm going to call Lenovo tomorrow and try to learn when the U.S. rollout will be. I'll willing to wait a while, since moving to India just to be able to use a cool new computer doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm not saying that this tale proves that the United States is heading toward becoming a second class technology power. But there sure are signs pointing to that conclusion.

Such as, this comic in the most recent issue of Funny Times. This right-on view of how India and the United States are changing places comes from the mind of Jen Sorensen, creator of Slowpoke Comics.

As she says, "Soon, Americans will be providing tech support to Bangalore. In broken midwestern-accented Hindi."

Sounds plausible. Americans already are drooling over computers available only in India.

Further unplugging of the Christmas machine

Last year we slowed down the Christmas machine, but it still had quite a bit of leftover energy. Now we're going to further unplug this monster.

No Christmas tree for us. This is a pretty big decision, given that our extra-large artificial tree has been a dominating feature of our living room for quite a few years.

Too dominating, we've decided. It's a pain to set up.

Just about as big a pain as driving to a real tree lot, agreeing on a suitable choice, tying it to the roof rack so it has a minimal chance of falling off on the drive home, carrying it around the side of the house to our deck, forcing it through a sliding door, getting it more or less upright in the tree stand, wrestling with tangled light cords, laboriously affixing them along with a huge number of ornaments, and then collapsing on the couch after a long evening and saying to each other, "Was all that work worth it?"

No, it wasn't.

Which is why we went the artificial tree route, which "merely" involves hauling four large boxes in from the garage, figuring out which boxes hold the different-sized branches (inevitably our labeling/storage system from the previous year is found to have glitches), sticking the branches into their proper color-coded holes, unbending the twigs that have gotten unduly bent, and then starting with "wrestling…" above, leading to the same collapsed "Was all that work worth it?" question.

So we're going to see how empty our lives are without a tree this Christmas. I suspect that the only void we'll be experiencing is free time.

No putting up and no taking down of a tree that had become an obligation rather than a celebration. Now I can spend those obligatory hours on more enjoyable activities. Like buying gifts for myself.

For once again Laurel and I have agreed to only give each other presents that the other person has bought for himself/herself. That guarantees an "Ahhhhh! Just what I wanted!" on Christmas day.

Sure, we'll probably bend the rules a bit and get each other a spouse-selected present or two. But like I said last year, explaining why making a contribution to the Elizabeth Bowers Education Fund will be so enjoyable:

You can't believe how much happier I'll be this year giving a donation to the fund rather than wandering around the Salem Center Mall the week before Christmas, searching aimlessly for a present for Laurel, who is horribly difficult to shop for because (1) she's picky when it comes to clothes and personal items and (2) she likes shopping for herself and already has anything she really needs, just because I know she'll have gotten me some "extra" gifts that I didn't buy for myself and I'll feel like a Scrooge if I don't make an attempt to buy her something, even though there's a really high probability that she'll be returning it the week after Christmas.

We haven't reached the end of our Christmas machine unplugging. But the less juice this materialistic ritualistic creature gets, the better.

The Puritans had a good idea: ban Christmas. That's the most Christian thing to do, really, since Christmas' source is thoroughly pagan.

Some of the key ingredients of modern Christmases - holly, ivy, fir trees, drinking and feasting - go back as far as it's possible to see. Our own cosy kissing beneath the mistletoe is a pale reflection of an older tradition of sexual licence and abandon.

Well, maybe I won't give up totally on Christmas, if we can just get back to the good old days when this holiday was celebrated the way it should be.

Plain truths about Oregon property rights

A few nights ago my wife and I went to a standing room only talk by Ralph Bloemers of the Crag Law Center, one of Oregon's premiere public interest attorneys.

Now, it was a small room at the West Salem Public Library. But still, I was impressed by how many people turned out for this Friends of Marion County meeting about vesting and land use issues under Measures 37 and 49.

Some Measure 37 claimants even came, wanting to learn how their development efforts are likely to fare under the new property rights climate ushered in by the passage of Measure 49 on November 6.

They heard some truths from Bloemers that probably startled ears used to the lies, dissembling, and legal misinterpretations that's an Oregonians in Action (OIA) trademark.

My favorite Bloemers quotes were:

This isn't about property rights people versus anti-property rights people. We all have property rights.
It's property rights people against property rights people.

Right on. As I've written about endlessly in the "Measure 37" category of this blog, neighbors of Measure 37 claims have just as many property rights as the claimants.

Like, in our neighborhood's case, the right to not have our springs and wells go dry from a large subdivision on groundwater limited farmland.

And in the case of a couple who lives near a Measure 37 claim near Rickreall in Polk County, and told their tale at the meeting, the right to not have their house condemned because it lies in the path of a road that would have to be re-designed if the claimant's commercial development were to become reality.

Which, it almost certainly won't.

Because Bloemers explained that it will be very difficult for Measure 37 claimants to be "grandfathered in" under that law and avoid the restrictions of Measure 49 (such as no commercial or industrial development, and a limitation of three home sites on farm, forest, and groundwater limited land).

The director of the state Department of Land Conservation and Development has said that no more than 10 claims statewide have a hope of being vested, the legal term for being "grandfathered in."

This is out of more than 7,500 claims statewide, so those who think they're going to get rich quick with Measure 37 are facing long odds. Not quite as bad as the lottery, but pretty darn close.

One problem facing the claimants is that vesting decisions fall under the common law of Oregon. Meaning, legal precedents are going to rule, not, as Bloemers put it, "midnight decisions by a county saying you're vested!"

In other words, political shenanigans won't be able to tilt a vesting decision in favor of a Measure 37 claimant. It's going to take solid facts and a good understanding of case law.

Thus the advice that Oregonians in Action has been proffering to claimants – rush ahead with construction – is going to lead to money being wasted by would-be Measure 37 developers.

As I've written before, "Hardly any Measure 37 claimants will have vested rights." (And now I've learned that the DLCD director, who knows a lot more about land use than I do, agrees with me.)

This is as it should be, a point hammered home by Bloemers when he talked about how the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that government zoning laws are eminently constitutional. So OIA's contention that Measure 37 restored rights Oregonians had under the U.S. Constitution is completely wrong.

Regulating land is a valid use of police powers, Bloemers said. Everyone is burdened and everyone is benefitted by land use regulations, just as is the case with speed limit regulations. It's a system of reciprocal burdens and benefits.

The individual and the community each have rights. He used the example of Grand Central Station in New York, a historic building.

If the owner had been allowed to tear it down, then the community of train fanciers who get much satisfaction from seeing Grand Central Station would lose their right to view a part of history. So the owner was required to build a new use on top of Grand Central Station – balancing individual and community rights.

Here's another way Bloemers asked his audience to look at land use regulation. When someone thinks they've lost money because of a regulation, and wants to be free of it, the question to be put to them is: "What if nobody was regulated, not just you?"

This is why I've said Measure 37 makes no sense (as 62% of Oregonians agreed when they voted for Measure 49, which went a long way toward fixing the flaws of Measure 37). I put it in terms of lemonade stands.

It's a hot summer. Every kid on the block gets the bright idea, "I'll set up a lemonade stand on our lawn next to the sidewalk." They all go to their parents for permission. The block is full of naysayers. "No way, kid. Find something else to do."

Except for one accommodating couple: "Sure, honey. It's fine with us if you sell lemonade." The child starts her business. She does great.

Because she's got the only lemonade stand on the block. All of the strict parents made it possible for the kid with permissive parents to make money. If there was a lemonade stand in front of every house, the limited number of cold drink buyers would be spread out among many competing sellers.

This isn't rocket science. It's basic economics. Which is why Oregon's Measure 37 is founded on illogic. This law says that owners must be compensated when land use laws reduce the value of their property. Or, the laws have to be waived.

The big flaw in this logic is that the very land use laws that prevent people from using their property as they want to—putting ten houses on a five acre parcel instead of one house, for example—is the reason why their property is so valuable if those laws are waived.

Measure 37 proponents like to spout platitudes such as, "When a government regulation reduces the value of your property, you should be compensated." What isn't said, but should be, is: "That same government regulation also is responsible for increasing the value of properties."

Bottom line: Both the community and the individual have property rights; both the community and the individual add value to property; both the community and the individual have a say in how property is to be used.

Firefox 2.0.0.11 deserves to be shot

I'm a mild mannered vegetarian, but after spending most of the morning fixing bookmark problems caused by Firefox's latest update (2.0.0.11), I'd like to have a fox hunt and shoot this increasingly buggy web browser.

I dutifully download new Firefox updates when I'm told to. In the past they've installed smoothly, aside from occasionally having to fuss with getting an update to an incompatible extension.

But today Firefox started up in its new 2.0.0.11 incarnation having lost my bookmarks and RoboForm logins. Not a good way to start off the day.

Because it took me a couple of hours to figure out how to get them back. I won't go into all of the messy, frustrating, time-consuming details.

Suffice it to say that I backup my entire computer weekly to an external hard drive, and I'm a moderately competent computer semi-geek. Yet it still was tough to get Firefox back to a near-semblance of normality.

That shouldn't happen, especially with an innocuous seeming X.X.X.XX update. Come on Firefoxians, you're past the third decimal. This minor change to the browser shouldn't have caused major problems.

Others have been complaining about bookmarks being lost after Firefox updates. See evidence here and here. Plus, the list of bookmark bugs in Firefox contains quite a few bug reports from frustrated users, such as a guy who lost three hours of research.

What bugs me about this bug is that it's been well known for a long time, yet Firefox keeps on sending out updates that are buggy. I'd rather have a simple program that works, than an increasingly complex program that crashes and burns with depressing regularity.

Which recent releases of Firefox have been doing on my computer. Firefox used to be endearingly stable. The latest releases, though, have caused the browser to tell me fairly frequently that it needs to close. Firefox is able to restart with the tabs open that I had before, but it's still a bother.

Back to my main complaint: If this happens to you – losing bookmarks after a Firefox update – don't despair. Go to "Bookmarks" then "Organize Bookmarks." Under "File" you'll see "Import." Click that and choose "From file." Then navigate to your Firefox profile, as described here.

Use Windows Explorer. You might need to do this to see the normally hidden files in the Application Data folder:

To see hidden files:
1. On the Tools menu in Windows Explorer, click Folder Options
2. Click the View tab
3. Under Hidden files and folders, click Show hidden files and folders

When you get to Firefox > Profiles > some mysteriously numbered folder, inside you'll find a "bookmarkbackups" folder. In my case that held the past five days of my bookmarks.

I selected the most recent date and copied the file to another location. I then renamed it "bookmarks" by deleting the date information. If you tell Firefox to import that renamed file, you should be back to normal – aside from any bookmarks you might have added after your bookmarks were backed up.

Again, this shouldn't be necessary to do. Unfortunately, Firefox seems to be becoming as problem prone as Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which it was supposed to be a big improvement on.

I just installed MozBackup, which looks to be a quick and simple way of backing up and restoring not only Firefox bookmarks but also other aspects of your profile (such as log-in cookies). It got a good review from the Download Squad and the download is certified as spyware free from Download.com – where I got it.

I'm going to run Mozbackup before Firefox installs any more updates (I've got Firefox's automatic download and install of updates feature turned off, as I recommend everybody do, given my experience).

Radio Free Salem offers hope to Oregon’s gray zone

Praise be!

Help is on the way for the oppressed residents of Salem, we who have the misfortune of living in the depressing I-5 gray zone between the bright spots of Eugene and Portland (along with Albany and Woodburn, but Salem is the capital of mid-valley ho-hum ness).

The December Salem Monthly asks "Could 88.5 FM be the new home of a community radio station in Oregon?"

It will, if aspiring community radio station operator Karen Holman succeeds with her FCC application for a non-profit radio license.

Holman is a chemistry professor at Willamette University. I hope she brews up a creative blend of alternative music, talk, and reportage, a la Portland's KBOO.

You can read about the plans for Radio Free Salem on her MySpace page.

I'm excited. I'd love to host a Church of the Churchless program where the heathens, infidels, pagans, godless, and damned of Salem can talk about our faithlessness.

The radio station would be a terrific addition to a community that comes up way short in culture, creativity, energy, and excitement – as documented with depressing regularity on this blog here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Best of luck, Karen. We Salemites await news of our air waves liberation.

Measure 49 vesting information

This is the sort of blog post that's absolutely fascinating to a few, and absolutely boring to the many.

So if you're into the nitty-gritty of Oregon's Measure 49, which went a long way toward fixing the land use disaster of Measure 37, you'll love this compendium of vesting-related information.

If you're not, all I can say is that what follows will be great reading for those agitated sleepless nights when you need something boring to shut your mind down.

Because this is a compendium of legal writings surrounding the question of when a Measure 37 claimant has a vested right to continue with development of a project, even though Measure 49 was passed by 62% of Oregon voters on November 6, 2007.

If you're vested, it's a lot like being "grandfathered" in to a previous state of legal affairs. Measure 49 says that the common law of Oregon is the basis by which vesting decisions will be made.

Since common law is a bunch of cases – precedents – there's no neat and tidy statute that says whether a development project is far enough along to be considered vested. Vesting is decided on a case by case factual basis, usually by a court.

But guidance, "Ballot Measure 49 and the Common Law of Vested Rights," put out by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and the Department of Justice, says that now either local governments or circuit courts may end up making vesting decisions. That DLCD/DOJ guidance is a good introduction to how vesting will be handled under Measure 49.

An easy to read overview is "1000 Friends of Oregon's Guide to Measure 37 Vested Rights." I found a few typos in it (210 days is 7 months, not 9 months), but this is a well-written and clear discussion of vesting – albeit with a not-surprising slant toward the interests of neighbors opposed to a project being vested. Download vesting_guide_11.20.07.pdf

A new "Citizen's Guide to Vesting" is forthcoming, says 1000 Friends. You can check here periodically to see if it's available.

The best legal analysis of vesting has been written by Ralph Bloemers of the Crag Law Center. And I'm not saying that just because he's the lawyer representing our neighborhood in a fight against a Measure 37 subdivision that threatens our groundwater.

His memorandum on "Transition to Measure 49 & Vested Rights" is a solid take on the common law in this area. If you're a Measure 37 claimant you may not like some of what Bloemers has to say, but you need to understand it if you hope to be successful in a vesting case. Download crag_law_center_memorandum_on_vesting_11_9_2007.pdf

Bloemers and the Crag Law Center also distributed an analysis of HB 3540, which became Measure 49, and the good faith requirement for vesting. It's also must-reading for both Measure 37 proponents and opponents. Download memorandum_on_vesting_for_the_public_7_24_2007.pdf

Their memorandum on the issuing of permits under Measure 37 is less directly related to vesting, but is still applicable. Download crag_law_center_measure_37_memo_re_applicable_law_11_9_2007.pdf

A couple of attorneys in central Oregon, Edward Fitch and Michael McLane, have put out a counterpoint to the Crag Law Center vesting analysis. They don't make nearly as much sense as Bloemers, in my opinion, but you can read and decide. Download ed_fitch_m49.pdf

A Zupancic Group memorandum on "Common Law Vested Rights Under Measure 49" also tilts toward the pro-Measure 37 legal side. Still, James Zupancic and Kristina Faricy have put together a lot of vesting case law and make some interesting arguments. Download vested_rights_memo.pdf

These LUBA notes on vesting are for the really hard core Measure 49 junkie. They point to cases that help form the common law in this area. Download luba_notes_on_vesting.pdf

For an example of how counties are approaching vesting decisions, peruse Marion County's recently-passed vesting ordinance. Download marion_county_vesting_ordinance.pdf

Roger Kaye, president of Friends of Marion County, submitted a letter commenting on the proposed Marion County ordinance. It contains additional observations on the case law in this area. Download fomc_ltr_re_m49_ordinance.doc

Atheists are the embattled minority, not the religious

The more my agnostic mind ponders Mitt Romney's Faith in America speech, the more I get irritated by it. It's nonsensical – his notion that the United States is threatened by a "religion of secularism."

I only wish.

This country is one of the most overtly religious in the world. We vie with Saudi Arabia and other super-fundamentalist nations for the dishonor of having the most religious crazies per capita.

Yesterday I said on my Church of the Churchless blog that Mitt Romney's weird religion is relevant to voters. His chosen faith, Mormonism, is strange even by religious standards. It's "revelation" came via golden plates.

In 1827 the golden plates supposedly were dug up in New York by the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith. They'd been protected by an angel named Moroni and engraved by Mormon, a pre-Columbian prophet-warrior. Smith translated the plates by looking into seer stones called Urim and Thummin.

Yet it's eminently possible to run for president of the United States and believe in this unbelievable stuff. More: it's not only possible, it's required.

An atheist candidate would be dead in the campaign water. Probably ditto for an agnostic. It's extremely difficult to conceive that anyone could be elected to a high public office in this country if he or she honestly said, "I don't believe in God," or "I don't know if there is a God."

Of course, nobody else knows either. But lots of people think God exists, and when it comes to God, subjective thoughts are the presumed reality– not anything objectively true.

Jack Oceano asks, "An Atheist as President of the United States?" His right-on answer:

Americans will not elect an atheist who doesn't hide his beliefs. In fact, atheism carries such a stigma in the United States that most Americans will not even conceal the fact that they wouldn't vote for a candidate who declared he was an atheist.

If an American stated outright that he or she would not vote for a candidate because the candidate was a woman, an African-American, or a Jew, that American would be criticized, ostracized, called a hateful bigot. But if that same American were to say that he or she would not vote for an atheist, there would be no such backlash. And sadder still, most Americans would agree.

Sometimes, half-seriously, a friend or acquaintance tells me that I should run for public office. My usual response is, "No way. My past would come back to haunt me."

But I'd have some ready responses if the unthinkable ever happened, and I found myself on the campaign trail. If I were asked whether I'd ever used psychedelic drugs, I'd say: "Absolutely. And I can promise that even if I was high, I'd be able to make better decisions than my opponent."

That'd get a laugh.

Because the whole issue of drug use isn't a big deal to most voters. Hardly anybody cared about our current president's cocaine days. Or Bill Clinton's marijuana use (though he supposedly didn't inhale, which also should earn a laugh). Barack Obama's pot smoking is pretty much a non-issue.

However, imagine if I were asked, "Do you believe in God?" and said, "Heck, no. Why should I?" I doubt that I could be elected dog catcher, even though I've got a dog, and I'm pretty good at catching her.

So here's where our befuddled country is at: If you have blind faith in a divine being for whom there's no evidence, you're considered to be qualified to serve in a public office. If you kneel at the altar of reason, science, and factual reality, you're facing a steep uphill battle in an election.

If you ever blasted your consciousness with illegal drugs, though, no problem. Probably because religion requires the same sort of Far out! way of looking at the world.

Unbelief in God should be as irrelevant to a person's electability as Mitt Romney wants his Mormonism to be. Only when it is can we say that there truly isn't a religious test for public office in the United States.

Steve Novick twists my arm; I pay up

Oh, man. A 4' 9" guy with a missing left hand just wrestled me into forking over $100 to him.

Ordinarily that'd bother my macho sensibility, but last night I was happy to be bested by Steve Novick, who is a Democratic candidate for Oregon Senator Gordon Smith's seat.

When the phone rang at 6:45 pm, just ten minutes before we had to leave for a neighborhood association meeting, and as I was about to bite into some rice and lentils, I was prepared to abruptly dismiss the caller.

But when I heard, "This is Steve Novick," I figured the meeting and food could wait. I admire a candidate who spends his evenings phoning prospective supporters.

Especially one who would call little ol' unimportant me.

There I was, talking with someone who might end up running against Smith in '08, and who could win if he beats out Jeff Merkley in the Democratic primary (Novick's campaign says he's within six points of Smith).

Why, I was conversing with a man who was poised to become one of the most powerful politicians in the United States, if a few minor hurdles – outvoting both the preferred candidate of the Democratic establishment and an entrenched incumbent – could be jumped over.

In my excitement I made a few gaffes, like telling Steve that I've been getting frequent emails from his campaign. Actually, it's Merkley who has been filling up my inbox.

Which I've been ignoring, because the Democratic primary hasn't grabbed my attention. As a non-affiliated voter, I can't participate in it, and either guy would be so much better than Smith, I'll happily support him.

I told Steve, though, that I like the fact that he's swimming upstream against the favored candidate of the Democratic Party powers-that-be.

I frequently say "a pox on both parties," so the more independent someone running for office is, the better I like them. Steve could turn out to be the Obama to the Hillary'ish Jeff.

A come from behind guy who appeals to the many disaffected voters in the middle who are fed up with the B.S. that both political parties spew out.

In my ten minutes with Steve, I urged him to be as quirky and different as possible. Guess I hardly needed to say that to a man less than five feet tall with a hook for a left hand, but it still needed saying.

Oregonians, I opined, like eccentrics. The fact that we're the most unchurched state in the nation implies that a politician doesn't have to appeal to the faithful and adhere to policy dogma in order to win.

I liked when Steve said that this state, and country, needs to have an honest conversation about taxes and spending. We agreed that government often can spend people's money more wisely than individuals can themselves.

I waste money on all kinds of crap. It's ridiculous, the notion that if I get to keep taxes that would otherwise go to the government to pay for children's health care and such, society would be better off.

So when the conversation ended in an expected fashion, with Steve asking for a contribution, I didn't feel like saying "no." Today I headed over to his web site and made a donation to his campaign.

Novick may not beat Merkley in the primary. But he's a fighter with a "hard left hook" that Oregon needs.

Oregon is a nasty place to live, really!

The winds have died down. The rain has stopped. I've taken the chain saw out of my car, which I drove around with for the past three days, ready to cut my way through roads blocked by fallen trees.

Things are starting to get back to normal in the Northwest after the biggest Pacific storms in a decade roared through.

Here in south Salem we did fine. No power outages. No flooding. Just a bunch of fir branches blown loose by the 45-50 mph winds.

But elsewhere in Oregon and Washington havoc ruled. Many roads are closed, including the I-5 freeway between Portland and Seattle.

It's hard to see a silver lining in news stories that begin with:

A pair of storms that slammed into the Pacific Northwest had much of the region under water Tuesday, leaving five people dead, thousands without power and major highways shut down.

But I can identify at least one: maybe this will help convince people who are thinking of moving to Oregon that this state is a nasty place to live. It is! Really!

And I'm not saying this just because I recall with fondness Gov. Tom McCall's famous admonition, "Come visit us again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't come here to live."

He said that in 1971, the year I moved to Oregon. So it obviously didn't have the desired effect on me. Nor on so many others that now we need lots of Tom McCalls.

I'm hoping that these storms will do what McCall couldn't: keep people from moving here.

Heck, already I have to spend an increasingly disturbing number of minutes every week in Salem "rush hours" (which for a long time have been called "rush minutes," but threaten to become the real thing).

And, aspiring Oregonians, you need to know a few other things about this godforsaken state.

One of which is that it is indeed godforsaken, being the most unchurched state in the nation. Not surprisingly, Portland is believed to have more strip clubs per capita than any other U.S. city.

So if you want to tick God off (and trust me, that isn't a good idea; just look at the storms that hit the godless), go ahead and move here.

If you do, prepare to spend a lot of time smelling gasoline fumes. Because Oregon is one of two states that don't allow you to pump your own gas. You can self-serve your own suicide, however.

Bottom line: don't even think of coming to Oregon. North Dakota, check it out. They're just trying to scare you off with all that Badlands talk. I hear it's a terrific place to live.

Details of Larry Craig’s gay sex come out

Christmas has arrived early for those, like me, who love it when gay-bashing conservatives turn out to be – take a guess – gay.

Or at least, bi-sexual. Today's Idaho Statesman newspaper has a tell-all story, "More gay men describe sexual encounters with U.S. Sen. Craig."

David Phillips. Mike Jones. Greg Ruth. Tom Russell.

Four gay men, willing to put their names in print and whose allegations can't be disproved, have come forward since news of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig's guilty plea. They say they had sex with Craig or that he made a sexual advance or that he paid them unusual attention.

They are telling their stories now because they are offended by Craig's denials, including his famous statement, "I am not gay, I never have been gay." Those words, spoken on live national TV on Aug. 28, are now memorialized on a just-released-for-Christmas Talking Senator Larry Craig Action Figure.

It's fascinating to listen to the audio clips included with the online story of Phillips, Jones, Ruth, and Russell describing their encounters with Craig.

Some of the details are graphic. And difficult to discount as made up, coming as they do from four separate sources.

Almost certainly what we have here is one more prominent Republican who is either gay or bi-sexual, yet has denounced homosexuality from his political pulpit.

Being gay isn't sinful. Being hypocritical is.

As many of the comments on the Idaho Statesman story said: Just come out and tell the truth about who you are, Larry, and people will feel much better about you.

A cartoon in Funny Times gets it just right. Here's the New Gay Stereotype: middle-aged, married, conservative, "family values."