HinesSight

Obama is the grown-up, but will Republican kids behave?

Like I said yesterday, President Obama put on a remarkable performance at the House Republican retreat in Baltimore. I watched the entire Q and A session. (For highlights, go here.)

Together with his State of the Union address, which was similarly energized and honest, Obama has gone a long way toward soothing my anxious progressive psyche. I finally recognized the leader who was so appealing during the 2008 campaign, yet has been so blah most of the time since his inauguration.

When he spoke with the House Republicans, it was crystal clear who was the adult politician in the room: Obama.

Almost with exception, the Congresspeople who asked questions (which actually generally were mini-speeches) couldn't do anything but repeat conservative talking points.

They sounded like first graders reciting "Here is Dick and Jane. See Jane run!"

My wife looked over my shoulder and watched part of the video on my laptop. After a few minutes she said, "Boy, Bush never could have done what Obama is doing." Namely, spontaneously thinking on his feet and demonstrating an impressive grasp of policy details.

It's obvious that Americans are fed up with partisan gridlock. Obama challenged the Republicans to put aside their tired cliches ("He's a socialist," "He's wrecking the country") and engage in open and honest legislative negotiations.

I get irritated at how fractured Democrats often are. But at least they think for themselves. As this New York Times story says, Congressional Republicans are acting like robots who can only push the "no" voting button.

From a sunny perch 5,000 miles from chilly Washington, the party leaders watched Republican members of Congress try to keep their balance as Mr. Obama sought to reclaim the mantle of reasonable bipartisanship in his State of the Union address on Wednesday night and his remarkable public debate in Baltimore with House members on Friday.

At stake, they knew, was the heart of the strategy they had pursued for the last year and had intended to carry into the midterm elections: remaining unified to block the White House at every turn, rallying the conservative base but leaving Republicans vulnerable to being portrayed as the obstructionist party of no.

"No, no, no!" That's what two-year olds like to say. Also, Republicans.

In the video I watched, Obama kept making cogent observations that elicited repeated so true's from me. I think it was around the 38 minute mark when he told the Republicans that their extreme demonizing of his policies had left them almost no room for compromise.

That is, a Republican elected official would be vilified by the right-wing base if he or she voted for an administration-sponsored bill, even if it was largely in accord with conservative principles.

So Republicans are locked into being the party of "No!" so long as they lack the courage to think for themselves. Hopefully they'll grow up soon and bring this country the sort of adult leadership we all deserve.

Obama schools Republicans in bipartisanship: must-see video

Wow, President Obama nailed House Republicans at their retreat today in Baltimore, where he met with them in an amazing session -- which thankfully was televised in its entirety.

I had a lot of trouble viewing the question and answer part of the meeting on C-SPAN. Probably its web site got overloaded.

But Daily Kos TV has a nicely functioning video, plus a transcript. This is terrific political entertainment. Obama makes the House Republicans look immature, obstructionist, and incompetent.

Enjoy:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's how the Huffington Post characterized the meeting:

President Obama traveled to a House Republican retreat in Baltimore on Friday and delivered a performance that was at once defiant, substantive and engaging. For roughly an hour and a half, Obama lectured GOP leaders and, in a protracted, nationally-televised question-and-answer session, deflected their policy critiques, corrected their misstatements and scolded them for playing petty politics. 

White House officials told the Huffington Post they were absolutely ecstatic. MSNBC's Luke Russert, who was on the scene in Baltimore, relayed that a Republican official and other GOP aides had confided to him that allowing the "cameras to roll like that," was a "mistake."

I want to love the Apple iPad and iBooks, but...

At 10 am yesterday I was glued to my MacBook Pro, watching Engadget's live-blog feed from the Apple event where the long-awaited iPad tablet was announced.

I fell in love immediately. Or, was it just a passing lust?

Today I'm trying to figure out whether iPad and me are going to have a long-term relationship, or whether my instant attraction to her was a passing thing.

Ms. iPad is unavailable at the moment. Reportedly it's going to be a couple of months before I could bring her home and start feeling her up (the iPad is like an iPod Touch or iPhone on steroids -- similarly controlled by a touch screen rather than keyboard or mouse).

The iPad is indisputably sexy and beautiful.

Over the past 24 hours I've read enough instant reviews and watched enough videos of the iPad to know that she's my type, along with my iPod Touch, iPhone, and MacBook laptop (ooh, I could be on the edge of an Apple foursome!).

But here's the thing: the iPad is fairly pricey, $449 to $829, not counting possible add-ons and a potential cellular agreement. I need her to be more than a pretty plaything.

I have an iPhone with all kinds of apps. I have a 13 inch MacBook with all kinds of programs (plus a CD/DVD drive, USB ports, and other stuff the iPad lacks). So why do I need -- as contrasted with lust for -- a 10 inch iPad that basically is an iPhone/MacBook hybrid?

Watching the iPad rollout yesterday, at first I was wowed by how photos, emails, web sites, maps, and such could be manipulated on this snazzy touchscreen tablet. It even has iWork. Wow!

Except, after a little reflection, un-wow. I already have Pages and the other iWork applications. I already have iPhoto. I'm happy with how Mail works on my MacBook. My iPhone has GPS and I don't feel like forking out for another spendy cellular data plan.

So what's going to make me buy an iPad after I get the word that it's available for purchase?

One thing: a great, or at least very good, e-reader (or e-book) application.

I returned a Kindle 2 about a year ago after deciding that I wasn't ready to take the plunge into reading books on a screen. Then I looked long and hard at the Nook when it was released, but wasn't really turned on by it.

The iPad's iBooks app looks promising, but I've got some questions about it. Notably, and this may sound picky but it is super important to me, can you easily highlight and ideally also annotate a passage in a book?

This first impression of iBooks disturbs me:

A limitation definitely dictated by the ePUB standard is the lack of facilities to highlight or annotate passages of text in a book. Despite much lobbying, the ePUB standards group hasn’t defined how annotations etc should be held within a book. The iPad with iBooks will be severely limited within the educational and academic arenas without the ability to highlight and annotate.

Yeah, no kidding.

Also within the non-fiction book-reading arena, where I am a daily player. As noted before, I'm addicted to highlighting. I was counting on Apple to recognize that a touchscreen would be well-suited to drag a finger across highlighting.

If something like this isn't available on the iPad, Apple probably has lost me. (Are you listening, Apple sales department? You've still got time to request software changes.)

As I see it, the basic problem with the iPad is that it isn't a must-have like the iPhone was for millions of people. There is no amazing oh my God! new killer application that makes me say "I've absolutely got to get an iPad."

If it is a markedly better e-book reader than the competition in this area, I'll happily get out my VISA card. But the jury is still out on this iPad application. I'm eager to learn more about iBooks.

Measure 37 vesting cases reach Oregon Court of Appeals

It's been a couple of years since Measure 49 was approved by 62% of Oregonians in November 2007, putting the brakes on the Measure 37 train wreck that threatened to demolish the state's pioneering land use system.

Most property owners who made a claim under Measure 37 to be exempt from land use laws that applied to everybody else -- to put a bunch of houses on high value farmland, for example -- have taken advantage of a provision in Measure 49 that allows them to have three home sites on six acres of their least productive farm or forest land.

But a few who had made a start on developing their Measure 37 claim prior to the passage of Measure 49 are pressing ahead with vested rights applications. In November 2007 I predicted that few of these would succeed. 

Vesting basically means to be "grandfathered" in (sorry, grandmothers, I didn't come up with that word choice).

Measure 49 says that vesting decisions are to be made under the common law in Oregon -- essentially a bunch of individual cases that combine, sometimes not very smoothly, into a blend called "vested rights common law."

This law is being applied in several vested rights cases that have reached the Oregon Court of Appeals after initial decisions at the county level. Recently Ralph Bloemers, an attorney with Portland's Crag Law Center, argued two Yamhill County cases on behalf of Friends of Yamhill County and others who are trying to protect farmland from excessive development.

A posting on the Crag Law Center web site summarizes the Court of Appeals cases. A story in the Newberg Graphic discussed one of the cases, the proposed McClure annexation.

They're significant, because Oregon only has one Court of Appeals (the highest state court other than the Supreme Court). So a Court of Appeals decision becomes a statewide precedent.

Land use geek that I am, I attended both hearings.

It was my first time in the Supreme Court hearing room, which the Court of Appeals also uses. It's appealingly old-fashioned. Stained glass window ceiling. Dark wood. Comfortable couches along the walls.

The judges asked good questions and made good comments. The attorneys presented good arguments, some better than others. All in all it was an entertaining couple of hours (I watched just about the entire O.J. Simpson trial on Court TV; this wasn't nearly as exciting, but it still appealed to my inner lawyer).

A high, or low, point came when I was waiting for a vested rights case to start and didn't want to pay complete attention to the arguments in a preceding case. I'd brought along some reading material and was quietly perusing an issue of "New Scientist."

Until the female bailiff walked over and whispered to me, "There's no reading during a session. It's disrespectful to the judges." I told her, "Sorry," and put the magazine down.

I then looked around and observed a number of other people reading away. Attorneys, some in the audience and some at the court tables, were reading notes and legal papers. A guy next to me was reading a law summary of some sort. Reading was happening all over.

Well, I decided I wouldn't have much chance of winning a challenge of the "no reading" rule -- at least before the Court of Appeals, since they made the rule.

Lastly, the Portland Oregonian ran a story today about how the state's land use system is successfully preserving valuable farmland in the Metro area. This is a great example of why citizens passed Measure 49.

The region's unsettled growth questions round into view at Peter McDonald's 1870s farmhouse. All the long-range population and job projections. All the tense debate over designating land for houses, stores and factories, or for farms and forests.

McDonald's Inchinnan Farm sits along the Willamette River, 20 minutes removed from the 1.5 million people who fill the Portland metro area and 20 years shy of the 1 million more projected to join them. But out the farmhouse windows and beyond the uniform rows of his hazelnut trees, there isn't another structure, vehicle or person in sight.

McDonald and a rising chorus of fellow farmers want to keep it that way.

To an extent not seen since Oregon's land-use system was adopted 35 years ago, farmers in Clackamas, Multnomah and especially Washington County are siding with conservation groups and local-food activists on the issue of designating urban and rural reserves -- areas that will be developed or preserved for the next 40 to 50 years.

At public hearings across the region, plain-spoken farmers in Carhartt jackets, work boots and blue jeans are calling for compact cities, tight urban growth boundaries and strict protection of farmland. Jim Johnson, the state Department of Agriculture's land-use specialist, said he's never seen such a collaboration of farmers and environmentalists.

Obama needs to channel his warrior "Avatar"

Fresh off of seeing Avatar last night in mind-blowing 3-D, I'm hoping that President Obama will rock my psyche in a different -- but related -- way next Wednesday when he gives his first State of the Union address.

Fight for what you believe and take on the freakin' bad guys!

This is one of the Avatar good guys, Jake. He was a crippled paraplegic soldier who regained his kick-ass capabilities when his mind was melded with the artificially created body of a Na'vi lookalike.

The Na'vi are the indigenous people of Pandora. Slender. Graceful. Intelligent. Attuned to nature. Spiritual. Blue.  

Which makes them a lot like Obama.

Hugely likable, but with a flaw: when the scheming, greedy, selfish, money-hungry corporate bigwig who wants to pillage Pandora's astounding natural resources for a rare mineral sends in his hired guns to blast away the Na'vi, they don't know how to fight back effectively. 

Jake does. He's fearless. He's willing to dare anything to protect the people (and Na'vi babe) whom he's grown to love after getting a crash course in Pandoran culture and lifestyle.

Including how to ride large nasty-looking winged creatures who, he's informed by his Na'vi guide, Neytiri, have to choose you before they can be ridden.

Jake asks, What's the sign of being chosen? Neytiri replies: One tries to kill you.

Here's a lesson for Obama. You aren't going to be able to win a battle against bad guys by playing nice, searching for middle ground, hoping for the best. You've got to put your (political) life on the line by standing firm for what you value.

After some brutally painful failed attempts, Jake manages to tame his dragon-like winged creature and uses it to fight the Pandora plunderers. (Earth, apparently, has been totally environmentally wrecked, so humans have set out to despoil other planets.)

Watching "Avatar," I found myself deeply inspired and sometimes almost moved to tears. Seeing people/Na'vi manifest marvelous courage, fearlessness, and commitment to saving a planet (earth-sized moon, actually) brought out a lot of emotion in me.

I haven't felt that way about Obama and the Dems since the 2008 campaign. I want to, again.

But currently this cartoon reflects the depressing status of the party that controls both houses of Congress and the presidency. Clueless. Wimp'ish. 

I was pretty sure that Avatar was going to have a happy ending (which it does). The movie's politics are undeniably progressive and I couldn't believe that director James Cameron would leave me in a downer mood when the closing credits came on, given the philosophy he wanted to express in the film.

After exchanging a greeting in the language of the native Na'vi population, Oprah asked Cameron if he's a spiritual person. After all, the Na'vi greeting "I see you" is a phrase with a deeper meaning more akin to "I understand who you are." "I guess I must be, because this film represents a lot of ideas and feelings I have as an artist," he said, going on to highlight his movie's "environmental message and the idea that we are all connected to each other as human beings."

Obsessed with what he termed "nature's imagination," Cameron said "Avatar" was his "attempt to bottle that." 

(Here's another take on the politics of Avatar.)

Well, Obama and his family saw the movie while they were in Hawaii last month. I can only hope that he imbibed some potent Avatar juice and is ready to channel his Na'vi warrior spirit during the State of the Union address.

No punting on the one-inch line, Mr. President. Push your legislative and political agenda across the goal line. That's what you were elected to do.

This humorous one-minute video exposition on the Balls Beer approach to health care reform echoes that theme. Obama, chug a cool one. And grow some.

Fabulous fantasy feature set for the Apple tablet

Beautiful! Mark Morford nails his lust list of desirable features for the long-rumored and apparently about-to-be-announced Apple tablet. Bring it on!

Here's some of Morford's entirely reasonable wishes (he's speaking directly to the tablet).

On the topic of health and happiness, it would be tremendously helpful if I could, say, hold a given food item in front of your gleaming screen and have you instantly reveal, via an intricate array of special sensors, the exact nutrient value, fat quotient, caloric assessment, global carbon footprint, potential colonic damage and overall dietary necessity of said comestible, along with exactly how amped or sluggish, healthy or regretful I will feel for the next three days if I consume it. Also, please perform the same function for potential girlfriends. Sexual playthings. Children. Pets. Politicians. Religions. Vitamins. Illegal drugs. Grand unification theories. Sunshine.

Meantime, I would like you to thoroughly organize my 8,000+ song library, my 20,000+ photo library, along with all article clippings, porn collections, shopping habits, grocery lists, cocktail recipes, address books, mailing lists, fond memories, future plans, unicorn-adorned dream journalings, sleep mutterings, in-shower brainstorms, post-coital poetics, childhood traumas, spiritual longings and nagging subconscious lifelong anxieties that are now manifesting as mysterious pains in my kidneys.

Please sync it all with my Vedic astrological chart, my delta sleep cycles and my yoga teaching schedule, cross reference it with my various moods and meditative temperaments, and then automatically play the exact song/photo/article/whatever my deepest soul was hoping to experience at the exact moment I was wishing to experience it, so as to alleviate all personal sadness, fears, doubts and suffering for all time. Or at least while I'm in the tub.

Raising Oregon taxes will be good for our state

A couple of new polls suggest that Oregonians are about to raise state taxes on high income citizens and some corporations by passing Measures 66 and 67. Support for the measures may be slipping, though.

I hope they pass.

Oregon is a low tax state, as I noted several years ago. This recent cartoon from the Eugene Register-Guard demolishes the ridiculous anti-tax argument that people and businesses will shun Oregon if state taxes are hiked slightly.
William Yaeger, an Oregon State University economist, did a fine job of pointing out the benefits to the state's economy of passing Measures 66 and 67 in a Register-Guard opinion piece. 

Although some might have you believe otherwise, the economics behind Measures 66 and 67 — the tax referenda that Oregonians will be deciding over the next two weeks — actually are not that complicated. The main issues can be framed as a benefit-cost analysis, where public services are the benefits and taxes are the costs.

The economic question is equally simple, and perhaps more to the point: Do the measures’ benefits outweigh their costs?

...In this [short-run] situation, most research clearly shows that raising taxes on high-income families will be less harmful to a state’s economy than reduced public services. So in a world of two bad choices, raising taxes on high-income households is “less bad” than further cuts to public services. It also is more equitable, since many of these public services support the less fortunate in our communities.

Right-wing talk show hosts like Portland's Lars Larson are fond of decrying the "waste" of taking money from the private sector and putting it into the public sector. Yaeger points out that this isn't true.

There is a wealth of economics literature on this topic — dozens of national studies that have looked at state and local taxes, scouring the data for evidence of how to maximize benefits at the minimum cost. One recent summary of those studies concludes that “there is little evidence that state and local tax cuts — when paid for by reducing public services — stimulate economic activity and create jobs,” and that “increases in taxes, when used to expand the quantity and quality of public services, can promote economic development and employment growth.”

Who wants to live or do business in a state where the roads are crumbling, school classrooms are over-crowded, parks are poorly maintained, and universities aren't able to educate a quality work force?

Today I got into a chat with a woman about people who don't like to pay dues to their neighborhood association. She lives in a manufactured home park where the assessment is a whopping $50 a year.

Even so, some residents refuse to pay. She couldn't understand this. "If they'd prefer to live in a messy, run-down area, they should leave," she told me. Exactly.

Anti-tax zealots are the first to complain when government services don't meet expectations. Yet they're unwilling to fund them at an appropriate level. In my previous post I said: (Ron Saxton was a 2006 Republican candidate for governor)

In the same fashion, tax-cut anorexics (otherwise known as right-wing Republicans) have the delusion that government spending can go on a limitless spending diet without ever incurring any ill effects.

I’d like to ask Saxton, “Could you ever see yourself spending more of your household income on health care?” I assume he’d say “Yes.”

If not, I’d follow up with: “What if your wife or child fell ill and needed expensive medical treatment that wasn’t covered by insurance? Would you be willing to spend more money to save the life of a loved one?” Almost all of us would. All of us who have more than an ounce of human compassion.

So Ron, what if it was your beloved state of Oregon that had fallen on hard times and needed more money to cure health, education, environmental, transportation, or other serious problems?

No one should vote for a candidate who says that he’ll never raise taxes. Especially when he lives in a state that already has a below-average state and local tax burden. Fall another ten places in the rankings, from 36 to 46, and Oregon will enjoy the company of Alabama.

Whoopee.

Economist Yaeger's opinion piece has an accompanying figure that tells the tale of Oregon taxes and public services. This copy is a bit fuzzy, so head over to the Register-Guard web site for a possibly clearer "original." 

The top left chart shows the impact of Measures 66 and 67 on Oregon income groups. Only the top 1% are affected materially, and even there, not to a great extent.

The top right chart shows Oregon's student-teacher ratio ranking. It's been sinking steadily. We're now 49 out of the 50 states.

And the lower left chart shows how Oregon state taxes as a percentage of personal income compare to the national average. We've always been below average. Even if the tax measures pass, we still will be -- quite a bit below (note the slight uptick on the right side of the bottom graph line).

So hopefully Oregonians will recognize that raising taxes often is good for a state's economy. Also, a nation's.

My "I don't care" mood should worry Obama

I don't care. That's my core reaction to Republican Scott Brown's win over incompetent campaigner Martha Coakley yesterday.

People like me should make Obama and the Democratic leadership very, very worried. I was a hugely enthusiastic Obama supporter in 2008. Gave lots of money. Responded regularly to the frequent emails that came from the slick Obama online cyberspace machine.

Now, I take a glance at whatever is sent to me by the group that has inherited Obama's email address list, yawn, and press the delete button.

A few times in 2009 I sent in a contribution to support health care reform efforts. That was when I (wrongly) believed that Obama and the Congressional Democrats were committed to taking on the fat-cat insurance, pharmaceutical, and other corporate players.

I don't care.

This also is how I currently feel about an health care insurance reform bill passing in 2010. The Senate version has been so watered down from an already diluted House bill, which itself was far from what needs to be done to control costs, assure universal access, and improve quality.

Somehow Obama and the Washington Dems have managed, in just one year, to squander most of the progressive energy and enthusiasm that led to a presidential victory and solid majorities in both the House and Senate.

I'm almost ashamed to admit this: the Tea Baggers sometimes have a good point. Our deficits are indeed too high. Congress is spending lots of taxpayer money in stupid ways. Wall Street is raking in disgusting profits while Main Street continues on unemployment.

Last night my wife and I watched a Stephen Colbert interview with David Walker, former Comptroller General and now gadfly for getting this country back on track financially and policy-wise.

Walker has written a book called "Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility." I've ordered a copy. I'd much rather send $17 to Amazon and Walker than to any national political organization.

Walker made a lot of good points, including one that I heartily agreed with: most people in Congress are focused on winning re-election because politics is a job for them, not a calling.

So they don't vote according to what is good for the country. They vote according to what is best for themselves -- a huge difference. I can completely understand why Massachusetts rejected the Democratic candidate, since she represented the majority status quo in Washington.

Problem is, going back to a Republican majority in Congress won't change anything. We had wasteful spending and corporate sucking-up under the Republicans. Now we've got it under the Democrats. No difference.

Well, let's say not much difference. The Dems may be completely screwed-up, but I'll take their incompetence over the Republican variety any day.

Where to go from here?

The progressive blogosphere seems to tilt toward full speed ahead, playing the same political games Republicans used so well when they were in power, but didn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Ordinarily I'd agree with Jed Lewiston's hard-edged "The new bipartisan math: 41 is greater than 59."

We can debate endlessly about why exactly Scott Brown won, but the point is that his victory shouldn't matter as much as it does.

But yet it does matter. It matters so much because the Senate is a completely dysfunctional institution, and even though Republicans have been the driving force behind that dysfunction, Democrats have been all-too-willing to go along with the GOP.

Sure, it's beyond idiotic. It's the height of stupidity. But it's also what happened. And now we're seeing the consequences.

For Democrats, the only way out will be challenging the notion that 41 Republicans should be able to dictate legislative outcomes. But given Democratic acceptance of the filibuster rule, it might be too late.

Yes, it might be.

Wikipedia has a graph of how times a filibuster has been invoked in the Senate since 1947. It's obvious that the Republicans have been using it about twice as often recently as the Democrats did during the Bush administration.

But as Theda Skocpol says in a New York Times blog post about the Democrat's learned timidity, they don't know how to stand up for themselves or the American people. 

They have forgotten how to make heartfelt arguments, how to play hardball, and are always expecting to cave or surrender.

Well, if the Dems don't care, I don't care. At least we can agree on that.

Ukraine's Yulia Tymoshenko: a hot national leader

I don't usually pay much attention to politics in Ukraine. But when I saw a photo of the country's prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for some (obvious) reason I became enthralled with her.

She's in a runoff to be the next Ukrainian president. I'll be rooting for her. All I need to do is glance at her opponent to tell that Yulia is hugely hotter more qualified.
  

In contrast with our own female politician hot babe, Sarah Palin, Tymoshenko actually has some brains and competence. Wikipedia tells me that she graduated with an honors degree in economics and was president of United Energy Systems of Ukraine.

But really, who cares? It's her looks that fascinate, particularly her hair.

My wife, who has had natural long blond hair for most of her life, zeroed in on Yulia's head-encircling braid with laser-like skeptical intensity as soon as I showed her the photo above.

"It's almost impossible for her to have a braid that long," she said. "Her hair would have to be down to her waist."

I was pleased to conduct some Google research on this subject, since it led me to additional photos of Tymoshenko. Her braid is truly awesome.

The New York Times analyzed Tymoshenko's hair style and concluded that the braid is indeed real. 

Tymoshenko's plait first attracted wide notice in the Orange Revolution of 2004, when, fairly or not, her beauty was commented upon nearly as often as her role in bringing down the post-Soviet government that reigned in Kiev.

The braid has become such a staple of her persona that her Web site unabashedly features articles about it, including some claiming that the braid has influenced designers like Narciso Rodriguez and celebrities like the actress Sienna Miller.

Yet the braid is not just a fashion statement. It is a calculated political tool with significant cultural resonance, one that has helped turn her into more than a candidate. To her supporters at least, she is regarded as a kind of Lady Liberty.

A braid is a traditional Ukrainian hairstyle, and by adopting it, Tymoshenko, a former prime minister, has been able to underline her nationalist credentials, drawing a contrast with her main opponents, who are more closely linked to the onetime overlord, Russia.

...Tymoshenko's advisers acknowledge that using a hairstyle as a campaign symbol could trivialize her. But they say that she is such an electrifying leader and speaker that no Ukrainian would consider her a hollow candidate.

Still, she is regularly asked that most frivolous of questions: Is the braid real?

"Everything that I have is natural - braid, nails - I practically never use cosmetics," she once said at a news conference. "They often ask me in the provinces about my braid. Now, once and for all, I am going to lay to rest these rumors."

With that, in front of the cameras, she let her hair down, Rapunzel-like, for all the world to see.

If you want to see more of Yulia Tymoshenkno, and why wouldn't you?, head here, here, here, and her official website gallery.

Oregon Measures 66 & 67 elicit anti-tax lies

My wife and I have happily mailed in our "yes" votes on Measures 66 and 67. I love to pay taxes. They're the largest contributions to the general good of society (Oregon, United States, world) that we make each year.

These tax measures would slightly increase the amount of money high income Oregonians, and some corporations, pay. If they pass, Oregon still will have one of the most favorable tax burden on businesses.

Currently, even with the new taxes, we're #14 among the 50 states.
Download State business tax climate

So it's ridiculous for the No on 66/67 crowd to claim that the measures will be "job killing" if they pass. Texas has about the same business tax climate (it's #11) as Oregon does, and conservatives like to tout the business-friendliness of that state.

Since facts, and the virtue of unselfishness, argue in favor of Measures 66 and 67, opposition ads have had to resort to lies.

Here's a marvelous example of duplicity recently uncovered by Kari Chisholm of Blue Oregon in "Busted! Latest anti-tax-fairness TV spot features an 'Oregon small business' in... California?!"

Kari looked into a TV ad purportedly showing that "Paula's Bake Shop" would have to lay off two employees if Measure 67 passes. There's just a few BIG problems with this claim.

First, Paula's Bake Shop is in Auburn, California, not Oregon. Second, even if the business was located in this state, it is a sole proprietorship, so almost certainly it would pay zero additional taxes under Measure 67.

If the owners' had an individual taxable income of $125,000 or more ($250,000 for a couple), then they'd pay slightly more in taxes. But if a bake shop is doing that well, the owners can afford to help keep teachers, police officers, and others employed -- and buying cookies.

(To learn more about No on Measure 66/67 lies, check out "Truth surfaces in Oregon despite consultants' efforts.")

Oregon's wise land use fights global warming

In some ways my wife and I are good examples of how to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas pollution: we own two hybrid cars, and I ride a 45 mpg scooter as often as possible.

But we also live in a rural area about six miles from the Salem city limits. So we do a lot of driving back and forth to town. More driving means more greenhouse gas emissions.

Yesterday Laurel and I attended a 1000 Friends of Oregon lunch meeting where this environmental organization's 2010 legislative agenda was discussed. I learned about a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Task Force established in 2009 that is linking land use planning and efforts to fight global warming.

Makes sense.

Sprawling cities and subdivisions sprinkled around the countryside force people to use their cars more. A 1000 Friends report by Joel Batterman, "The Land Use-Transportation- Climate Change Connection," says:

Oregon has committed to fight global warming by reducing greenhouse gas pollution to one-quarter of 1990 levels by 2050. One-third of today’s emissions come from transportation; however, cleaner fuels and more efficient vehicles alone are not enough to attain the necessary cuts. Oregonians must also significantly decrease the distances we drive. We can meet this challenge through compact communities and transportation choices, while also creating more livable communities and leading the nation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Oregon has an exciting opportunity; we should seize it.

It's going to take several years before the Task Force's recommendations result in on-the-ground improvements to Oregon's land use and transportation planning. Eventually, though, our great state should be even more of a Green national leader.

At the end of the 1000 Friends lunch meeting I felt a warm glow, and it wasn't all due to the excellent vegetarian brown bag meal I'd eaten that was put together by The Wild Pear restaurant. 

The 1000 Friends staff who talked about 2010 legislation and answered questions were competent, friendly, and committed. It was reassuring to realize that 1000 Friends and other Oregon environmental organizations are actively working to keep our state, nation, and world from falling into the pit of climate change disaster that threatens us all.

I moved to Oregon in 1971 to attend graduate school at Portland State University. It was a hugely welcome change from San Jose, California, where I'd gone to college.

I didn't know much about Oregon when I came here -- just that it was supposed to be a green, largely unspoiled paradise compared to the already smoggy, crowded, and concretized Bay Area.

The rumors were true. I was thrilled to find blackberries growing behind the Raleigh Hills apartment where my wife and I lived. I couldn't understand why our fellow Oregonians weren't out there picking them like we were.

I'd take a bus down to Portland State. The first few months, I couldn't take my eyes off of Mount Hood when the bus started down Terwilliger (I think it was) and a vista to the Cascades opened up.

Almost all of the other bus riders would have their heads in a newspaper, magazine, or book. I'd wonder, "Don't they appreciate what they've got here in Oregon? I guess they need to spend some time in San Jose, then return to Portland."

Well, after almost forty years here, I've become a bit blase myself about my adopted state. But I never fail to go wow when I drive over the south Salem hills to our home and see Mt. Jefferson in the distance. 

And I haven't gotten tired of eating wild blackberries on a hot August afternoon, taking a juicy break on a dog walk.

We Oregonians need to both protect our state's marvelous natural environment and assure that the human "built" environment doesn't screw up what nature has given us. Compact cities, smart growth, public transportation options, bike paths, protecting farm and forest land -- if we do this, and more, my granddaughter (plus further generations to come) will be able to visit me and express her own wow's.

Oregon coyote derby senseless and wrong

If you're offended by a southeastern Oregon coyote derby that offers a prize for bringing in the most sets of ears, you've got good reasons to be. 

Coyotes are pack-oriented wild dogs who are part of the balance of nature. They control rodents, which are a nuisance. My wife and I wish there were more coyotes in our neighborhood.

Killing coyotes doesn't reduce their numbers; it increases them. When coyotes are killed, more coyotes breed and have larger litters. Coyotes also fill vacated habitat from surrounding areas.

Yet Jamie and Angel Roscoe are promoting their coyote derby in Klamath, Lake, Harney, and Malheur counties.

The final head count and prize ceremony will be conducted at 4:00 PM PST in Silver Lake, Oregon. Most dead coyotes (just bring in sets of ears) wins. Prizes will be 1 Varmit rifle per team member of 1st place team (TBD caliber and make and model), 1 spoting scope or rifle scope or pair of bino's per member of 2nd and 3rd place teams. Entry fee is $50.00 per man, or $100.00 per team.

Yesterday my wife heard about this disgusting event from Brooks Fahy of Eugene's Predator Defense, an organization that we've supported and been involved with for quite a few years.

She emailed the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

To Whom It May Concern,
 
Please stop the planned coyote killing contest. It is scientifically ill advised, not to mention ethically. If there is already a coyote problem, it will only make it worse. There are far better ways to raise money for good concerns, and such heartless, wildlife destroying contests set a very bad example for children. This planned contest is barbaric and crass.
 
Well documented scientific studies have proven that killing coyotes disrupts their social structure leading to large sudden increases in their populations as any left in an area quickly fill the gap by having much larger litters. Additional females come into heat and produce young when an alpha female is killed (rather than just the alpha female in a pack producing young which normally is the case), so rather than one female in a group producing young, numerous females in each group can produce large litters, which survive due to the plentiful food sources left available due to a sudden reduction in coyotes sharing the area.
 
Coyotes have a helpful role in the environment in that they control voles, rats, mice, etc. While they do contribute to killing of livestock, this mainly happens when ranchers do not take adequate measures to protect their livestock themselves.
 
I live in a rural area near the Ankeny Wildlife refuge. Residents in our area live with a steady population of coyotes in the area, and found that whenever someone in the area has shot some coyotes, populations of voles, skunks, and mice seem to explode. The coyotes soon return, and are never gone for long. Our neighbors have learned how to protect their livestock with llamas or donkeys.
 
Ethically, such contests teach children and young adults a reduced valuing of the lives of living creatures. Hunting prey animals, such as deer for food, is one thing, but killing intelligent canines which survive with complex social structures is another. Encouraging such killing in a contest form may lead to a disregard for other canine species such as the pet dogs so many of us see as part of our families, and spend a lot of money and care for.
 
Please do not allow this barbaric contest!

Laurel got a terse response from Carol Turner of ODFW's Wildlife Division.

Thank you for your email. ODFW is not involved in the coyote derby event in SE Oregon. What the organizers are planning is legal. Coyotes are classified as predators, not game animals, and there are no regulations that prohibit coyote hunting.

Which didn't appease my animal-loving, cruelty-hating wife. She responded with...

Dear Carol, thank you for your reply. I still believe that ODFW should intervene in this manner and notify the parties putting on the event that it is unsportsmanlike and ill advised, in that will be one more thing to turn those already not advocates of hunting even more against the absurdity of killing intelligent animals just for fun. Coyotes are not prey animals but intelligent predators who help the balance of nature, and killing a few in a pack upsets their whole social structure.

Killing coyotes to protect livestock is barely accepted by the general non-ranching public, but killing coyotes just for sport and especially for barbaric contests is especially deplorable. Not discouraging these contests will eventually lead to a public backlash to ban coyote killing for any reason.

We pay state taxes also, and I am an Oregonian. I expect ODFW to better manage wildlife in Oregon for all, not just for hunters who want to kill our wildlife just for barbaric fun. 

New research is already available and being disseminated by reputable biologists about the helpful and necessary role of natural predators in maintaining a balance of nature down to the level of micro organisms. It is time that ODFW begin to respond to this new scientific knowledge with better policies.

Perhaps ODFW cannot presently legally stop such contests, but they could intervene and discourage them. Perhaps the State needs to seek to establish regulations to disallow such hunts.

Please let me know the name of the administrator of ODFW (and the most accurate mailing address) so that I can send a more official letter to him/her about this issue, as it likely may arise again in the future. 

A coyote derby in Nevada aroused similar opposition. Hopefully the time is coming when these sorts of cruel, needless killings of top ecosystem predators will be viewed as the senseless wrong acts that they are.

The organizer of this bloodsport believes that killing a bunch of coyotes is going to honor a friend of his who died of cancer. I don't agree. But each to his own.

Jamie Roscoe can do his thing. My wife and I will do ours: try to have coyote derbys outlawed in Oregon -- and ideally the entire United States.

My Ten Commandments of Napping

As the adage goes, "write what you know." I shall obey, because I know a lot about napping. Not academic knowledge -- first-hand, eyes-shut, direct experience.

In fact, I just had a nap.

That refreshment, combined with a cup of coffee, has stimulated me to share some of the napping wisdom that I've gained over many years.

For I am not new to napping. In 1977, a few years out of graduate school, I began my second "real" job with the State Health Planning agency here in Salem, Oregon.

I had a private office, being a manager. One of my first executive decisions was to bring in an old couch from home. Often during the noon hour, I'd nap.

More than thirty years later, I still am.

Now that I'm retired, I've been able to put more time (but not effort -- see below) into honing my napping skills. I am ready to reveal to a hopefully yawning world my Ten Commandments of Napping.

Though I am not a religious person, obviously, I have chosen to name my tips as I have because I consider napping to be a secularly sacred experience. It is a highpoint of my day, enabling me to tap into a divine wellspring of bliss:

Doing nothing.

Here are my revelations. There is no need to bow down before them. But if instead you're drawn to lay your head on a pillow and shut your eyes, feel free.

The Ten Commandments of Napping

(1) If you are sleepy, sleep. Just not while driving. Since you have snacks between meals, don't deprive yourself of naps between bedtimes. 

(2) Lose the guilt. A nap shouldn't be viewed as a forbidden pleasure. It is your right. Should a cat enjoy more freedom than you do?

(3) Ditch the alarm clock. A nap, like sex, shouldn't be timed. Quickies and longies are each pleasurable. Flow with your sleep wisdom unless there is an overwhelming reason to artificially conclude a nap.

(4) Don't over-analyze. As noted in my "The Tao of napping," researchers have found proven health benefits to taking a nap. But a nap doesn't need justifying. It is what it is.

(5) Come out as a napper. If your spouse asks, "What should I tell X if he/she calls while you're napping?" there's only one honest reply: "Tell them I'm taking a nap." Stand tall as a napper (except when you're lying down).

(6) Whatever happens is good. Sleeping. Resting. Contemplating. Blank minding. It's all good at nap time. Shut your eyes. Relax. Let go. Then...whatever. No expectations.

(7) Feed yourself. If a cookie and blanket is good enough for a pre-schooler's nap time, it's good enough for anyone's. Have a pre-nap snack. Napping and a full stomach go together like, well, napping and a full stomach.

(8) Embrace other cultures. The siesta is an honored tradition in Spain and many Latin American nations. Wikipedia says napping also is common in China, Japan, and other countries. The U.S. needs to catch up.

(9) Make it last. An "afternoon delight" should be savored fully. Don't jump up at the end of a nap. Languish. Relish the sleepified moment before moving on to waking life.

(10) Follow your own rules. You are the captain of your own napping boat. You march to the beat of your own yawning drummer. Ignore any or all of these commandments. Simply nap on. And then? Nap on.

Cold weather and global warming: perfectly compatible

Last month I heard a conservative radio talk show host proclaim, "Hah! It's snowing in Arizona. Guess this will make John McCain change his mind about global warming."

Idiocy must be contagious, because yesterday I heard something similar (on CNN, I believe). The weather person was saying that it was unusually cold in the central and eastern parts of the United States.

The anchor responded with something like "Well, that's interesting, since the Copenhagen conference on global warming happened not long ago." Before he could expand upon this illogical train of thought, the weather expert interrupted to save him from further embarrassment.

"When it's colder than normal in one area, it's usually warmer than normal somewhere else. Currently the jet stream is sending cold air from the arctic down into the heart of the country. But in Juneau, Alaska, it's warmer than in Chicago right now."

Like this Climate Progress blog post says, Duh! A cold snap doesn't disprove global warming. Obviously.

Problem is, our not-always-so-great United States is filled with people who either (1) don't know much about science, (2) don't care much about science, or (3) pretend to not know or not care much about science in at an attempt to score political points.

Regardless of the reason, it's hard for me to accept that someone could be so dense as to believe that just because it's really cold and snowy some place where it usually isn't, this shows that global warming isn't happening.

Here's an example from Europe of why this is a misconception. The United Kingdom's National Weather Service asks and answers the question, "What's Causing the Cold Weather?" 

In most winters, and certainly those in the last 20 years or so, our winds normally come from the south-west. This means air travels over the relatively warm Atlantic and we get mild conditions in the UK. However, over the past three weeks the Atlantic air has been ‘blocked’ and cold air has been flowing down from the Arctic or the cold winter landmass of Europe.

...The current cold weather in the UK is part of the normal regional variations that take place in the winter season. It doesn’t tell us anything about climate change, which has to be looked at in a global context and over longer periods of time.

Even though during the past few weeks it's been colder than normal in parts of the United States and Europe, it's been warmer than normal in other areas of the world. (Bluish areas are colder, reddish areas are warmer.)

Nonetheless, facts don't stand in the way of anti-scientific global warming deniers. Media Matters addresses this subject in "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?: Climate Change Edition."

Answer: not if you're on Fox News.

Cold weather has come to almost inevitably yield reflexively mindless right-wing media attacks on the scientific consensus about global climate change. Yes, when it's chilly outside, particularly if it happens to snow, media conservatives go into hysterical fits -- declaring the idea that global climate change actually exists and is at least in part caused by humans a complete farce.

Actually, what's farcical is someone saying Ooh, it's cold! That disproves global warming!

Rudy Giuliani forgets 9/11

Unbelievable: Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York City on September 11, 2001, forgets the attacks.

Rudy Giuliani claimed Friday that were “no domestic attacks” during George W. Bush’s presidency.

...“We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama,” he said, forgetting not only Sept. 11  but also the anthrax mailings to congressional offices and media outlets.

Giuliani should be ashamed of his idiocy. And apologize to the relatives of those who died on 9/11, which he has forgotten.

Nuvi 285W replaces Nuvi 350 as my GPS friend

Yeah, I'm fickle. If something more desirable comes along, I'll break up in an instant with an attractive piece of technology even if I've had great times with it.

So goodbye venerable Nuvi 350, who's been a part of my life since November 2006. Thanks to an after-Christmas Amazon sale, I'm now in an increasingly intimate relationship with a younger Nuvi, the 285W.

Lots of people, including me, love the Nuvi 350 -- as evidenced by 3,140 mostly glowing reviews on Amazon.

My only significant gripe with the 350 was how she mispronounced basic names, like "drive." We live on Lake Drive, or in Nuvi-speak, Lake Dr. For three years I've listened to a female voice guide me home by saying "Turn on Lake Doctor SE."

No matter how many times I screamed at the GPS device No! It's drive, DRIVE! she kept on with her irritating ways. The 350 also had trouble with some other words, while the Nuvi 285W has been pleasingly correct with its pronunciation so far.

This alone is worth the $135 I paid for it. But I've found quite a few other improvements over the 350. Such as...

Faster start-up time. I just conducted an inside-the-house test. From the moment I pressed the "on" button, it took 23 seconds on the Nuvi 350 to get to the home screen, compared to 17 seconds on the 285W. Four satellite reception bars appeared at 1:40 on the 350, and at 1:13 on the 285W.

Bigger screen. W is for widescreen, I believe. Which figures, since the 285W has considerably more viewing territory than the 350. Pressing "view map" on both GPS devices, I could see a lot more of our neighborhood on the 285W. Plus, street names for our rural area showed up, while the 350 was nameless. 

Better searches. I like how the 285W lets you choose a distant city and then do searches for food, lodging, and such. I'm pretty sure the 350 can't do this. The "Where Am I?" feature also is nice, showing GPS coordinates, nearest address, and nearest intersection (along with buttons for "hospitals," "police stations," and "fuel").

Bluetooth. Only problem is, I barely know what Bluetooth is all about, never having used a device with it. Even so, I managed to get my iPhone and the 285W connected. Now I just need to figure out why I need Bluetooth (Oregon did just implement a law that banned talking on cell phones while driving without a hands free device, but I rarely use my iPhone as a phone (that's so last decade).

Cranked-up volume. Sometimes it was hard to hear the Nuvi 350 give her turn by turn directions, though I was glad to have the mispronunciations as garbled as possible. The 285W seems to offer a higher speaker volume, which is nice when I'm on a noisy road.

Both GPS receivers are terrific. I'm just finding that the Nuvi 285W is more refined and offers additional useful features -- which it should, being three years newer.

For example, the 285W shows the speed limit for non-urban roads. It seems to be quite accurate; as soon as I reached the 55 mph sign on Liberty Road that marks the end of 45 mph, "55 mph" popped up on the map.

These days, everybody should have a GPS device. Especially business people. Today a guy was scheduled to come out to our house and give us a bid on a repair job. He phoned three times before he arrived.

First call: he'd left our address at his office. I gave it to him, along with some rough directions. Second call: he couldn't find Lake Drive on his map. I told him we didn't live within the Salem city limits, so it probably wasn't going to show up on any of his maps. I gave him more detailed driving instructions. Third call: he said he couldn't find 10771 but was at 10371. I told him that was our house number. "Oh, I must have put down a 7 rather than a 3."

By this time I wasn't impressed with the guy's savvy. If he can't find our house, does he have the smarts to fix what needed repairing? A $95 Nuvi 205 GPS navigator would be a great sales pitch investment for him.

Money market account redemption hysteria

A friend recently emailed me some links that warn of impending financial disaster. He noted that I don't often write about economics, which is true.

So I took a look at a couple of the sky is falling posts and will report on my impression of them. Which is, in a word, yawn. I don't feel a pressing need to invest in an umbrella to protect against sky pieces.

My first stop was "Is the US Goverment Preparing the Lifeboats for the Next Financial Disaster?" I guess this title is supposed to be critical of the (misspelled) government. But isn't it better to have a lifeboat than to go down with the ship?

The post references a longer analysis of supposed proposed rule changes by the SEC and the Obama administration.

The primary concern seems to be the new ability of money market fund managers to freeze redemptions (withdrawals) of funds at their discretion.

"A key proposal in the overhaul of money market regulation suggests that money market fund managers will have the option to 'suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of fund assets.'"

Well, it's hard for me to get freaked out over an effort that would stem panicky bank runs. This sounds like a good thing, not a bad one.

Maybe the author of this post doesn't realize that banks don't have a big vault where everybody's deposits are kept in cash. Money comes in to a bank, and then it is loaned out -- or otherwise invested.

So only a certain amount of cash is available at a given time. If every depositor lined up outside the bank and demanded his or her money in green stuff, it'd be impossible to immediately satisfy them.

Modern money market funds appear to be even less cash'y. I'm vague on how the inflows and outflows work, but the "bank run" principle seems to be the same: if every owner of a fund wanted all of their money cashed out pronto, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to accommodate the requests.

Government regulations help protect investors against excesses. Excessive risk-taking. Excessive greed. Excessive duplicity. And also excessive panic.

The New York Stock Exchange has "circuit breakers" that halt trading for a while when the Dow Jones Industrial Average is sinking like a stone.

In response to the market breaks in October 1987 and October 1989 the New York Stock Exchange instituted circuit breakers to reduce volatility and promote investor confidence. By implementing a pause in trading, investors are given time to assimilate incoming information and the ability to make informed choices during periods of high market volatility.

Most stock trades are done by professionals. Yet it's realized that even investing pros need to take a deep breath at times and not follow a panicky sell, sell, sell herd mentality.

The general public is even more prone to making the wrong investment decisions at the wrong time. Lots of studies show that people tend to buy at market peaks and sell at market lows.

That's why I've become a big fan of index investing, as noted in this post. I wrote it in early March of last year, when our portfolio was down about 30%, compared to the broader stock market decline of 40-50% since the big downturn began.

I just checked our Mint (a great financial web site) chart. We're now down less than 5%. If we'd cashed out of the markets when things looked absolutely horrible, our losses would have been locked in.

Sometimes people have to be protected from themselves. I've been investing for over thirty years and have come to understand the dangers of me believing that I can time the markets. Many (or most) people haven't come to this realization.

I'm a libertarian on quite a few social issues, but not when it comes to regulation of the financial markets. So regulate away on money market accounts, SEC and the Obama Administration.

Dick Cheney is a liar (as if that's news)

Not only a liar, a pants on fire liar.

That's how the independent fact-checking PolitiFact rated Cheney's claim that President Obama won't admit the nation is at war against terrorists.

I wish Cheney would go back to doing stupid things while hunting, like shooting a friend, instead of shooting his mouth off with completely erroneous idiocies.

I don't feel oppressed by technology

I love gadgets. They make me happy. Amazon just sent me a snazzier Garmin Nuvi. Trying it out while driving around yesterday, I had a great time. Really.

I'm a believer that money spent on technological innovations actually can buy happiness, especially if what I've bought is made by Apple. 

So I found quite a bit to disagree with in a recent New Scientist article by Yair Amichai-Hamburger, "Free yourself from oppression by technology." (Yes, that's a real name; he's director of an Internet Psychology research center in Israel.)

Such as...

The other factor is relatedness: our need to feel close to other people. Technology is a threat to this. Devices like the iPod can be used to create a bubble that disconnects us from normal human interactions, and while some virtual relationships may be truly meaningful, in many cases they come at the expense of real-world connections. Psychologists have found that the pivotal difference between happy and unhappy people is the presence or absence of rich and satisfying social relationships. Spending meaningful time with friends, family and partners is necessary for happiness.

Admittedly, he has a point.

Some people get obsessed with Facebook, gaming, online pornography, or other cyberspace enticements. But people also get obsessed with solitary fly-fishing, reading romance novels, and crossword puzzles.

Probably when writing started to become common, some of our ancestors decried the impersonal nature of communicating via papyrus or clay slates. "Why aren't we talking to each other face-to-face so much any more?!"

Ditto when the telephone came along. Yet now getting a letter in the mail or a phone call, rather than an email or text message, is viewed as a marvelous bit of old-fashioned personal outreach.

Culture changes. Society changes. Technology changes. Communication changes. Where's the problem in that?

I spend quite a bit of time on my computer. Maintaining two blogs, with a daily post on one or the other, keeps me staring at a MacBook screen for an hour or two each afternoon or evening, not to mention all the other stuff I do online.

Reading and replying to emails. Keeping up on my favorite web sites. Handling our finances. Etc. Etc.

I don't feel at all oppressed by this. Nor do I feel depersonalized. I keep in touch with lots of people who I would otherwise have no interactions with. I've "met" countless commenters on my blogs who live all around the world.

Yes, getting together with our fellow humans physically is nice. But so is getting together mentally. When I communicate with someone online, I consider that I'm doing so "in person."

I've gone to a lot of social gatherings where the normal mode of interacting is shallow chit-chat. I can take it for a while, but eventually my head feels like it's going to explode if I talk for another minute about the weather, or grandchildren, or how good the snacks are.

I have lots of meaningful interactions with people face-to-face. I also have lots of meaningful interactions with people technology-to-technology, which often are deeper and more honest.

The print version of the New Scientist article has this title and tagline:

Shiny, unhappy people
That new phone or laptop may be giving you a warm glow, but beware a stealth attack on your happiness, warns Yair Amichai-Hamburger

OK, maybe this is a fair warning for some people.

As for me, I'm going to continue enjoying the warm glow of happiness I get when I flip open my laptop, browse my iPhone applications, and check out the tricks my Garmin Nuvi 285W can do.

Or write a blog post all by myself. Ah, the bliss of pushing the "publish" button. Here comes a burst of joy...