HinesSight

"Compassionate conservatism" is dead in today's GOP

This is how far modern-day conservatives have walked the Tea Party's right-wing plank: progressives like me now look back on Republicans like George W. Bush (and his father, George H.W.) a lot more fondly than we did when they were president.

Like Ronald Reagan, both of the Bush's would be viewed as dangerously -- gasp!-- moderate by today's GOP faithful. Remember when "compassionate conservatism" was viewed positively by Republicans?

No more.

Just three years after George W. Bush left the White House, compassionate conservatives are an endangered species. In the new Tea Party era, they've all but disappeared from Congress, and their philosophy is reviled within the GOP as big-government conservatism. Is this just a case of the Republican Party wanting to distance itself from the Bush years — or is compassionate conservatism gone for good?

...There is a meanness to the way many Republicans talk about the poor these days that was not en vogue during the Bush years. Unlike Huckabee, they are angry conservatives.

...Just before the South Carolina primary, a progressive Christian group called the American Values Network released an animated video, "Tea Party Jesus," to mock the disconnect between popular conservative rhetoric and Gospel teachings. In a "Sermon on the Mall," a cartoon Jesus stands flanked by GOP politicians and pundits as he declares, "Blessed are the mean in spirit … blessed are the pure in ideology." It didn't take long for a Tea Party site to promote the video instead of taking offense.

Tea Party activists might not have gotten the joke, but if the Republican Party rejects completely the idea of compassion for struggling Americans, it will be no laughing matter.

For sure.

Right now I should be basking in the glow of my prescient prediction (redundant?) that the Supreme Court would give the Affordable Care Act a legal thumbs-up. I was correct about that, but I didn't anticipate the post-decision meanness of conservatives.

This is no joke.

In 2010, 26,100 people aged 25-64 died prematurely because of a lack of health care coverage. That's almost nine times as many people as perished in the 9/11 attacks. And it happens every year in the United States, one of the richest countries in the world (but not the greatest).

No other economically advanced nation is this backward.

Thomas Kang put up a great post where he offers advice to disgruntled conservatives who want to emigrate to some country which doesn't have universal health care -- even though the Affordable Care Act barely qualifies as such.

Anyway, that got me wondering where these poor uninformed folks could actually move to instead. Canada is out, as I mentioned, as are most European countries (England, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Spain...), Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil... basically, most of the countries that Americans enjoy visiting all have full-blown socialized medicine programs that make Obamacare look tame by comparison.  A quick search led me to the Wikipedia entry for "universal health care", which has the handy map you see below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

The orange countries have universal healthcare, the grey countries do not, the yellow countries are going universal, and the few brown countries apparently have healthcare coverage funded by the US.

So for all the Obamacare refugees-to-be out there, I have some great news!  To escape the tyranny of Obamacare and satisfy your non-nationalized medicine cravings, you still have plenty of options all around the world.  Pretty much anywhere in Africa fits the bill.  You can also check out China and North Korea, which should hopefully put to rest any claims that universal health care is somehow linked to Communism.  

It looks like Indonesia and the Philippines are also fair game if you prefer living by the beach in a warm, tropical climate.  There are also some places in South America that seem to be holding firm against the orange tide of universal health care, such as Colombia and Peru, and they're close enough to the States that you can still visit your friends every once in a while and offer them your sympathies for having to pay for their mandatory health coverage under Obamacare while you're living large in the Andes.

What the hell is wrong with us? More accurately, what's wrong with American right-wingers who have forgotten (assuming they ever knew) what it means to be a compassionate, caring person?

Driving around today, I heard a conservative phone in to a progressive talk radio show. One of the first things he said was, "I want everybody who can hear my voice to know one thing: conservatives are just as compassionate as liberals."

The hostess of the show clearly didn't agree, but she gave the guy a chance to show off his compassion. "So, do you believe that everybody with a serious health problem who needs medical care, should get that care?"

"No," he replied. "Then you're not compassionate!" she told him. Absolutely correctly.

The conservative was in massive irrational denial. He couldn't see the absurdity of his dogmatic Tea Party position. The guy didn't believe poor people were entitled to health care if they were sick, or to food if they were hungry. That's a defensible political position, but please, don't call it compassionate.

Compassion involves feeling the pain of others. More: a compassionate person wants to do something to help those in need. Switching radio channels today I heard several conservatives hold forth about why they didn't like the Affordable Care Act.

None of them expressed the slightest degree of sympathy for the low income uninsured who have a serious, or even life-threatening, medical condition. I kept hearing how health care is like other goods, such as cell phone service. The free market will bring costs down, assuring broad access, if it is allowed to work.

No, this won't happen. Health care experts point out that you won't die if you don't have a cellphone. You will if you don't have necessary medical care.

Every other economically advanced country has a universal health care system. Those other countries spend a heck of a lot less on health care and have better health outcomes, while assuring that everyone has access to necessary care. 

The United States is the least compassionate. We allow those 26,000 people to die prematurely each year because of a lack of health care. Sickening. As is the mindless bleating of Mitt Romney and his fellow hard-hearted GOP'ers with all their promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Here's part of what that would mean -- 10 benefits Americans have now under the Affordable Care Act, but would lose if the uncompassionate conservatives got their way.

(1) No lifetime coverage limits on health insurance
(2) No annual caps on health care coverage
(3) Children with pre-existing conditions can get insurance already
(4) In 2014, insurors have to cover everybody with pre-existing conditions
(5) Insurance companies can't drop you if you get sick
(6) You can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26
(7) Seniors get $250 towards closing the "doughnut hole" in prescription drug coverage 
(8) No more co-pays for preventative services in Medicare
(9) Small businesses get big tax credits for offering health insurance to their workers 
(10) Insurers with high administrative costs have to offer rebates to their customers 

This sounds good, doesn't it? Well, that's what your not-so-Grand Old Party wants to take away from you. Think about it when you vote in November. 

Romney lies about Obamacare adding trillions to deficit

Does Mitt Romney have no shame? For a supposedly religious guy, he sure has no problem lying. Today PolitiFact caught him in an obvious falsehood. 

The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, doesn't add trillions of dollars to the deficit. Actually, the Congressional Budget Office says that it will reduce the deficit. So Romney is just making crap up. 

So says PolitiFact, in a more polite manner.

How is it that a law can raise taxes and cut spending, but also add trillions to the deficit?

That was Mitt Romney’s claim after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the core of the health care law on June 28, 2012.

"Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. Obamacare cuts Medicare -- cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion," Romney said. "And even with those cuts and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations."

Here, we’re fact-checking Romney’s claim that "Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt." It’s a topic we’ve researched before.

We asked the Romney campaign for their evidence for this statement, but we didn’t hear back.

...The CBO said this about the health care law back in 2010: It lowers the deficit, by about $124 billion over 10 years.

And in 2011, when Republicans offered a bill to repeal the health care law, the CBO said that increased the deficit, by about $210 billion over 10 years.

...A statement on the CBO website on the day of the ruling said, "CBO is in the process of reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision related to the Affordable Care Act to assess the effect on CBO’s projections of federal spending and revenue under current law. We expect that this assessment will probably take some time."

Still, we find no factual basis for Romney’s claim that the law "adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt." We rate his statement False.

Affordable Care Act will survive Supreme Court decision tomorrow

There. I've gone out on a limb. I put a "will survive" in the title of this blog post.

I've been thinking that the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, is going to fare better with the Supreme Court than most pundits are predicting.

But until today I felt this was wishful thinking.

My wife and I hate Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oregon, who we send a large amount of money to each month for an individual policy that steadily costs more and covers less. We're looking forward to becoming eligible for Medicare in a few years, having experienced the "delights" (NOT!) of private health insurance.

The Affordable Care Act isn't perfect. Not by a long shot.

However, it moves the United States a lot closer to the universal coverage at a much lower cost with considerably better health outcomes that every other industrialized country in the Western world enjoys.

So what are the odds that the Affordable Care Act is either affirmed in total by the Supreme Court, or just gets a whack on the mandated coverage butt which hurts, yet doesn't leave the bill horribly mangled and left for dead?

Pretty damn good, according to a New York Times Supreme Court watcher, Linda Greenhouse. She reported on the Court for thirty years, 1978 to 2008, and teaches at Yale Law School.

Greenhouse analyzes decisions this week by the Supreme Court, noting who was on what side, and why. She also notes what I've been wondering about: why was Scalia unusually irritable (even for him) in his dissenting opinion on the Arizona immigration law? He was outvoted 5-3 when the Court ruled in favor of the Obama administration on key legal issues.

Considering all this, in "D-Day" Greenhouse writes: 

All of which, of course, leads to the question: what about the health care decision?

Since this column will be coexisting in cyberspace with the court’s Affordable Care Act ruling, due on Thursday morning, it’s undoubtedly foolhardy to repeat my prediction that the court will uphold the law. Well there, I just did.

Plus, Nate Silver, one of my favorite data-minded political commentators, finds overconfidence in the general consensus that the Affordable Care Act is dead on arrival at the Supreme Court.

In short, the conventional wisdom may have gotten ahead of itself. The more tangible factors, in my view, roughly balance one another out rather than favoring one or another side by a 3-to-1 margin.

Most of the rest is grasping at straws; the Supreme Court just isn’t so easy to read. As Justice Ginsburg advised: “Those who know don’t talk. And those who talk don’t know.”

Better stop talking. Except to say: I won't be surprised if the Affordable Care Act gets better news than most people expect from tomorrow's Supreme Court decision.

Great "Newsroom" speech: America isn't greatest country

Thank you, HBO. Thank you, Aaron Sorkin. Someone needed to say this -- no, scream it -- on nationwide TV.

The United States isn't the greatest country in the world.

Last night my wife and I watched the premiere of a new HBO series, "The Newsroom." Jeff Daniels plays a news anchor who can't take the bullshit anymore during a panel discussion and tells it like this country is.

Thanks to GQ.com, here's a transcript of the terrific mini-speech from How to Write an Aaron Sorkin Script, by Aaron Sorkin.

A song in a musical works best when a character has to sing— when words won't do the trick anymore. The same idea applies to a long speech in a play or a movie or on television. You want to force the character out of a conversational pattern. In the pilot of The Newsroom, a new series for HBO, TV news anchor Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) emotionally checked out years ago, and now he's sitting on a college panel, hearing the same shouting match between right and left he's been hearing forever, and the arguments have become noise. A student asks what makes America the world's greatest country, and Will dodges the question with glib answers. But the moderator keeps needling him until...snap.

Will 
It's not the greatest country in the world, professor, that's my answer.

Moderator 
[pause] You're saying—

Will
Yes.

Moderator
Let's talk about—

Start off easy. First get rid of the two noisemakers.

Will 
Fine. [to the liberal panelist] Sharon, the NEA is a loser. Yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paychecks, but he [gesturing to the conservative panelist] gets to hit you with it anytime he wants. It doesn't cost money, it costs votes. It costs airtime and column inches. You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart, how come they lose so GODDAM ALWAYS!

The use of inappropriate language has a purpose—the filter's off.

And [to the conservative panelist] with a straight face, you're going to tell students that America's so starspangled awesome that we're the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom, Japan has freedom, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium has freedom. Two hundred seven sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom.

The fact-dump that's coming now serves several purposes. It backs up his argument, it reveals him to be exceptional (what normal person has these stats at their fingertips?), but mostly it's musical. This is the allegro.

And you—sorority girl—yeah—just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there are some things you should know, and one of them is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world. We're seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies. None of this is the fault of a 20-year-old college student, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt, a member of the WORST-period-GENERATION-period-EVER-period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about?! Yosemite?!!!

[Cell-phone cameras are everywhere— people are tweeting and texting away.]

Now we slow down and get a glimpse into his pain. The oratorical technique is called "floating opposites"— we did, we didn't, we did, we didn't... But rhythmically you don't want this to be too on the money. You're not just testing the human ear anymore; you want people to hear what he's saying.

We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right! We fought for moral reasons, we passed and struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, and we acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one—America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.

To resolve a melody, you have to end on either the tonic or the dominant. (Try humming "Mary Had a Little Lamb" right now, but leave off "snow." You'll feel like you need to sneeze.) So Will ends where he started. Then, just to acknowledge that he just sang an aria— which is unusual in the course of a normal conversation—he turns to the moderator who'd been needling him and casually asks...

Will 
[to moderator] Enough?

Here's a You Tube video that shows part of Will's truth-telling at the beginning. I sure wish we had more politicians who talked like this. They might not get elected, but I'd vote for them.

 

Baby owl visits us, then freezes like a statue

A few days ago my wife and I were about to get in our car. I was locking the front door when I heard Laurel say, "Brian, look at this. An owl!"

It looked like a garden statue, perched in groundcover just off the edge of a stepping stone leading to our carport.

At first I was worried that it'd fly off if I aproached it from the front with my iPhone in hand. But no. What we assumed was a baby owl was so "frozen," I never saw it even blink.

(Laurel watched it longer than I did and eventually saw it blink.)

From above, it must have been almost invisible, given its markings and how it blended in so well with surrounding vegetation.

Freezing makes a lot of sense for a little owl out in the daytime. Danger largely lurks from above. Hawks must look for motion, so a stationary creature isn't likely to grab their attention.

It was gone by the time we got home after doing some errands. My wife had thought about picking it up and putting it in a tree if it was still there. Looking at its expression, and beak, my feeling was "no way."

Pacific Northwest spared drought in most of U.S.

Well, here's something to cheer up Oregonians who are waiting for a dry, warm summer to arrive.

(As I write this it's 61 degrees at 2 pm, and it's been sprinkling off and on today; June has been unusually wet this year.)

The map shows how much additional precipitation is needed to get a long term drought index back to what I assume is only mildly droughtiness, minus 0.5.

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho is the main non-drought afflicted region in the United States. Parts or all of some other northern states also are OK, rain-wise. But most of the midwest and south is suffering big time. 

Check out "Midwestern Drought Intensifies" on Climate Progress, where I found this map.

A mild snow-less winter, an unusually dry spring, and debilitating heat in May and June have created serious drought conditions in parts of Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana, among other states.

Despite recent severe storms that dumped more than 7 inches of rain on Duluth, Minnesota, last week, (causing chaos, especially in the city zoo), much of the Midwest is experiencing severe water shortages exacerbated by record high temperatures. According to the National Weather Service, there is no end in sight.

Global warming directly worsens droughts because hotter temperatures dry out soils and lead to earlier snowmelt, which reduces vital streamflow during the dry season (see here). As Texas state climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon, explained last year:

“There is evidence that global warming has had an effect on the drought, primarily by increasing the surface temperature, which increases the drought severity by increasing evaporation and water stress, and by decreasing stream flow and water supply."

Republicans are Grover Norquist puppets. Don't elect them.

Do you want a puppet to represent you in Congress or be your President?

Wouldn't you prefer to have someone who thinks for himself or herself and acts in the best interest of the country, rather than a robot who jumps whenever strings are pulled by a behind-the-scenes controller?

Republicans are those puppets. Grover Norquist is the puppeteer. His rigid anti-tax pledge is the strings. Columnist Dana Milbank reports that it's been signed by all but four House Republicans, most Republican Senators, and Mitt Romney.

Read his column, "Grover Norquist delivers the GOP's marching orders." Then make your own independent, provisional, thoughtful, reasonable vow: Vote for Democrats in 2012. Milbank writes:

“The leader of the Republican Party is up here today on the Hill. . . . You know who it is: It’s Grover Norquist,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said at a news conference Thursday, a couple of days after charging, with some validity, that Norquist “has the entire Republican Party in the palm of his hand.”

Norquist didn’t quarrel with the charge, as Fox News’s Chad Pergram put it to him, that he’s giving Republicans “their marching orders.”

“The modern Republican Party works with the taxpayer movement,” he replied, satisfied that “post-pledge, post-tea party, they’re not going to raise taxes.”

Even on the super-rich, who have benefited hugely from the Bush tax cuts, garnering an ever increasing share of the nation's wealth while the middle class suffers. Even if raising taxes a bit on those who can well afford to pay more is necessary to reduce the nation's budget deficit, while preserving essential program for those who need them.

Fundamentalism is destructive. Fundamentalists were behind 9/11, causing great harm to the people of the United States. Religious and political iundamentalism like the Norquist anti-tax jihad commandment, which almost all Republicans bow down to daily, is equally destructive. 

Elected officials should honor a different vow: to do what is best for the country.

Since almost all Republicans have given their allegiance instead to a single person, Grover Norquist, this is a great reason to not vote for them in November.

We're glad we sold our Nissan Leaf and bought a Volt

After two weeks with our 2012 Chevy Volt, my wife and I are pleased with our decision to sell our 2011 Nissan Leaf and get an electric car that also runs on gas.

(Our reasons for selling the Leaf are detailed here; photos of our Volt and first-day-home impressions are here.)

We had our Leaf for about six months. We've only been driving the Chevy Volt for two weeks. But important benefits of the Volt are clear already.

"Range anxiety" is gone with the Volt. We never ran out of electricity with the Leaf. Usually we'd get home with plenty of estimated range left, forty or fifty miles, or even more. But even when I wasn't consciously aware I was driving a fully electric car, an undercurrent of anxiety was present in my psyche. 

With the Leaf, running out of battery power means calling a tow truck. With the Volt, I calmly watch the remaining range indicator drop down to 1 mile, then wait for the gasoline powered generator to kick in, which runs the car's motor.

Big difference.

Emotionally the Volt is much more enjoyable to drive. Yet even with a trip to Portland (about fifty miles away), we've gotten 178 MPG out of the 430 miles driven so far. Most days, our gasoline mileage is infinite, since the Volt's 40-45 mile range on pure electric power allows us to drive around without using any gas.

The Volt feels normal, in a good way. Knowing that a fill-up is just a quick stop at a gas station away, rather than a lengthy stay at a charging station, makes driving the Volt feel much more like a normal car.

With the Leaf, I was always aware of driving an electric car; with the Volt, that feeling is in the background -- even though I like to keep an eye on the vehicle's electricity status display just to see what's happening with the battery pack.

That said, I like quirky cars. I mostly use our Mini Cooper S, while the Volt is my wife's main drive. I enjoy how the Mini's windows are controlled by rocker switches above the shift lever. After more than a year, my wife still gets irritated by this. 

"Why aren't they by the windows, like in every other car?" she asks. "Because the Mini is designed to be different," I reply. My wife likes the Volt because it feels so normal. It attracts attention not so much because it screams Electric!, as the Leaf does. Rather, it looks good. Sporty, lowslung.

The Volt is more pleasant to drive. My wife hated the unsupportive seats in our Leaf. She also disliked the light interior. The Volt's seats are much more comfortable. They don't feel very different from the Mini's seats: firm, with good side support to hold you in place under spirited driving.

Which can be done with the Volt. It doesn't handle like a Mini (few cars do), but it feels much more sports car-like than a Nissan Leaf. To me the Leaf exuded airiness, openness, futureosity. The Volt feels denser, enclosed, traditionally carlike.

This has pluses and minuses.

I didn't like the Volt's large rear pillars when I first drove the car, and I still don't. Rearward visibility sucks. And the car seems mildly claustrophobic compared to the Leaf. My Mini's large moonroofs let in light and a view of the sky; in the Volt I feel confined in a low, dark, interior.

However, this doesn't really take away from how much I enjoy driving the Volt. Yesterday I even found myself thinking (briefly) that I liked driving it as much as the Mini. That isn't really true. The Mini is much faster, handles much better, and has an appealing quirkiness the Volt lacks.

Still... the displays and audio system in the Volt are much more comprehensible and understandable than either the Leaf's or the Mini's. Chevrolet did a great job with both the touchscreen and other controls. I don't need to consult the owner's manual to figure out how to do something, as I have had to do with the Mini Cooper.

All in all, there's little we don't like about the Chevy Volt. Rear visibility is my main gripe, but after quite a bit of observing the right side blind spot, I've pretty much determined that when a car is no longer visible in the right side mirror, it is clearly visible via a look to the right.

(I'm just used to changing lanes with more confidence in the Mini and the Leaf.)

My only real anxiety now is whether we signed up for a lease with enough miles on it. Based on how we drove our two Prius'es (Prii?), we decided to go with 10,000 miles a year. That should be enough, but given how enjoyable the Volt is to drive, at the moment I'm choosing it over the Mini when my wife isn't driving the Volt more than I thought I would.

Likely that's just new car infatuation, though. And with the aid of our Chevy salesman, we figured out that even with the over-mileage penalty, it's still cheaper to sign up for a 10,000 a mile lease even if 1,000 extra miles a year are driven.

Bottom line: the Nissan Leaf is an excellent electric car. The people we sold our Leaf to are enjoying it a lot. But for us, the Chevy Volt is an even better choice. 

Oregon marijuana act supported by food union. No surprise.

I'm sure the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 555, had other reasons to endorse a proposed 2012 ballot initiative here in Oregon -- the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, which would legalize and tax marijuana consumed by adults.

But when I saw the Portland Business Journal story, all I could think was: Smart move for a food group. Munchies!

There's also some marijuana legalization news from Washington state today:

The other ballot measure is Initiative 502, which would essentially legalize marijuana, regulate it, and tax it. Washingtonians seem to like pot even better than gay marriage, as the initiative is passing 50-37. That's thanks to a substantial crossover from Republicans, many of whom are libertarian-flavored in the northwest: While Republicans oppose same-sex marriage 82-10 in this sample, they're only 68-22 against legal marijuana.

TIme to buy stock in Pacific Northwest munchie purveyors.

How I'm talking myself into buying a Retina MacBook Pro

Without rationalizations, what would my life be? Dreadfully filled with, ugh!, impersonal reality. I've got sound neuroscience on my side here.

Ever since Apple announced the Retina MacBook Pro, I've been wrestling with whether I should get one. On the day news of the new laptop was released, I presciently blogged, "New Retina MacBook Pro or MacBook Air? Laptop lust will decide."

That's how it's been going the past eight days.

Logic and reason lead me one way, emotion and intuition lead me another way. And here's the likely neuroscientific fact: my brain (a redundancy, because "my brain" is me) already has made the decision. I'm the last one to know what unconscious brain processes already have decided.

Can't be absolutely sure what that is. 

But the fact that I've been spending quite a bit of time thinking up rationalizations for spending $600 or $700 more to get a Retina MacBook Pro, rather than a basic MacBook Pro or a MacBook Air, seems to indicate which way my brain is pointing.

Sure, I went off on a reasonable route when I wrote a follow-up post, "Reasons to choose a basic MacBook Pro over the Retina." What I said made a lot of sense. Yet I resonated with what Steve, a commenter on that post, told me.

Your reasoning is rock solid and I agree with every point. But after seeing the retina display in an apple store in Columbus Ohio, I had to have the new box. Stay tuned.

I haven't seen a Retina MacBook Pro in person yet. Probably I will soon. When that happens, I suspect that I'll fall in love with the laptop, just as Steve did. Mostly with the display. After all, if looks aren't everything with this computer, they're almost everything.

Such is the theme of almost every review I've read about it. The other new features get a thumbs-up. The retina display gets leaping high-fives. For example, Mashable gushes:

Back to that screen. Perhaps surprisingly, the first thing you notice is the deeper colors, not necessarily the sharpness — although that becomes clear when viewing photos with lots of detail. Browsing through the Flickr feed of the NASA Goddard Space Center, the crowd could see those extra pixels working to show, say, the wispy clouds in satellite shots of earth.

Virtually all images were displayed with more vibrant colors and better contrast than on the older Pro.

It’s not just photos that benefit from the extra pixels, but text and iconography as well. Everything from the system fonts to app icons to the galactic background image looks sharper, with better contrast.

After I connected the retina Pro to an external (non-retina) Acer monitor, it became something of a game to drag windows from one screen to the other, watching the images and text magically transform as they crossed from edge to edge, becoming crisper and more affecting.

So I'm assuming that the Retina also will work its magic on me when I see and touch the temptress. This is why I'm working on my rationalizations.

The price difference isn't very much, spaced over three years. I've had my 2008 13 inch MacBook Pro for about three and a half years. A new 15 inch 2.3 GHz Retina MacBook Pro with a 256 GB flash drive, 8 GB of memory, an external superdrive, and an external Ethernet adapter would cost me $2,656.

 A comparably equipped 13 inch basic MacBook Pro would cost me $2,048. That's a $608 difference. For that, I'd get a larger retina display, a quad-core processor, and other high tech goodies such as better sounding speakers, quieter fan, HDMI port.

There are 1095 days in three years, which likely is about how long I'd keep the Retina MacBook Pro. So for a mere 55 cents a day, I'd enjoy all the delights that the most amazing laptop on the planet offers. If I was renting a laptop, would I pay 55 cents more a day for the Retina instead of the basic MacBook Pro?

Sure I would. 

I'm a "creative professional," if I think I am. Just about every review says that the Retina MacBook Pro is aimed at creative professionals, not ordinary laptop users. At first that gave me pause, since I'm retired and use my computer mostly for web surfing, email, writing, and basic photography/videos.

But hey, if I want to consider myself a "creative professional," I damn well can. I'm a published author. I'm working on rewriting my first book, which is out of print. I have two active blogs and spend an hour or two a day composing posts for them.

That's a heck of a lot of creativity going on. It's just the professional part that's a stretch, since the income I get from writing each year wouldn't even pay for a Retina MacBook Pro, much less support me in any sort of non-homeless style.

So what? In my own mind I'm definitely a creative professional who needs a cutting-edge laptop.

Beauty will soothe my soul (even though I don't believe I have one) and save the world. All reviewers agree: the Retina MacBook Pro is a beautiful piece of laptop computer art, along with other Apple produts like the iPhone and iPad. They may have quibbles with aspects of the technology, but the overall impression is beautiful. 

This rationalization has been aided by a book I picked up in the charming "library" that takes up a corner of the Camp Sherman, Oregon post office lobby. Residents of, and visitors to, this small town (pop. 200 or so) leave books there for communal enjoyment. A few days ago I picked up Susan Susanka's "The Not So Big Life: Making Room for What Really Matters."

She's an architect who writes about remodeling your life, using tried and true design principles. Chapter Two is titled, Noticing What Inspires You. It begins with a Ghandi quote:

We must be the change we wish to see in the world.

Yes! I agree! Mahatma Ghandi clearly is telling me, "Brian, you must buy a Retina MacBook Pro." After all, I want the world to be more beautiful, to have more clarity, to function more effectively. And Susanka writes:

Whether an object or a setting is beautiful or meaningful to anyone but you is irrelevant. It's what that thing or place is accomplishing in your life that counts.

Well, I'm pretty sure that a Retina MacBook Pro will be hugely beautiful and meaningful to me. Won't know for sure until we meet up, face to display, but that's my intuition. Or more accurately, rationalization. 

Photos of Whychus Creek trail near Sisters, Oregon

If you're looking for a beautiful, easily accessible, moderately challenging, six mile round trip hike through a variety of riverside terrain in central Oregon, check out the recently opened Whychus Creek trail. 

My wife and I learned about it through an informative article in the Sisters weekly newspaper, the Nugget. Craig F. Eisenbeis got us enthused about the trail in his "Experience the 'wild' at the edge of town."

After we took his advice, we were way more enthused. Here's some photos of what we saw.

The northern trailhead is reached from Highway 20 by driving 4.2 miles south on Elm Street, which soon turns into Highway 16. The small parking area is on the right. It's easy to miss, having no sign on the highway. Here's what it looks like as you drive by, preparing to turn around.

As Eisenbeis describes, the three mile hike (each way) features three sorts of scenery, each lasting for about a mile -- or roughly twenty minutes, at our hiking rate. Early on a protected pool offered me a chance to soak already-dusty sandals and give our new dog, Zu Zu, some stick chasing fun.

(Note: our old dog, Serena, is still alive and well. She's just, um, old. We left her at home, since she couldn't have handled this hike, given how slowly and sometimes unsteadily she walks.)

Then the trail heads upward into manzanita territory.

Views of Whychus Creek demanded a photo stop with my iPhone.

Zu Zu probably is thinking, "Come on, come on!! No stopping. There's fresh smells ahead!"

Whoever built the trail did a marvelous job. Kudos to them. Steep rocky spots are quite easily traversed with the aid of expertly placed stones. Still, the hike has to be classed "moderate." It requires some agility from both dogs and humans to navigate.

As we walked through the manzanita brush, layers of other types of vegetation stretching into the distance made for interesting viewing.

Nearing the end of the second mile, the end of an ancient basalt flow.

Then the trail heads down to meet Whychus Creek again. Steep and rocky, but easily walkable, thanks to the hard work of the trail designers.

Nearing the creek (which looks like a river), a solid stretch of whitewater beckons.

At first I wanted to take a photo of these rocks because of the color. Then, whenever I looked at the screen of my iPhone's camera I saw a face smiling wryly at me. When I gazed at the rocks camera-less, I couldn't see the image. My wife doesn't see the face in this photo. I sure do. Third eye in the forehead, nose, crinkled smile. A cliff sprite, I guess, speaking only to me (and maybe to you).

As we approached some large falls on Wychus Creek, we came across a man fishing from a rock, high above the water. HIs dog looked remarkably at ease.

The falls are impressive. A jumbled log dam on the left channels the water rightward.

When the trail started to head away from the river, toward the southern trailhead next to Highway 16, we turned around. But not before spending a lot of time taking photos of Zu Zu patiently posing on a stump. Remains of the 2010 Rooster Rock Fire are in the background.

Believe me, Angelina Jolie has fewer photos snapped of her at a movie opening than Laurel and I took of Zu Zu on that stump. I can't tell whether Zu Zu was smiling at this point, or snarling "Get me off this goddamn stump or you'll feel the force of my mighty fangs!!"

These fallen trees had to be hopped over, with the aid of judicious chainsaw cuts. Zu Zu had no trouble at all doing so. Me, at 63 I'm not so agile as a wiry two year old dog.

Laurel got quite a bit of dog training in during our hike. Here Zu Zu is impressively staying while Laurel walks quite a way down the trail. 

Photos don't do justice to the falls at the end of the Whychus Creek trail. So I took a short iPhone video. After it was uploaded You Tube told me that it looked shaky and asked me if I wanted to fix it. Being a fan of cinema verite, I said "no." What you see is what me and my iPhone saw.

And what you'll see if you take this hike. Try it; you'll like it. 

 

Reasons to choose a basic MacBook Pro over the Retina

After Apple's release of the 15 inch Retina MacBook Pro, I've been bouncing back and forth between finding good reasons why I need one, and why I don't. As I said in a previous post about my laptop lust:

After the WWDC event was over, the online Apple store returned to life with the new Retina MacBook Pro prominently displayed, which is basically a blend between the old MacBook Pro and Air. That's the laptop I lust for. But my pocketbook wonders if an Air would suffice.

I priced three options of the new models, with each including 8 GB of memory, a portable superdrive, and AppleCare: (1) a 13 inch 2.0 GHz MacBook Air with a 256 GB flash drive was $1,927; (2) a 15 inch 2.3 GHz Retina MacBook Pro with a 256 GB flash drive was $2,625; (3) a 15 inch 2.6 GHz Retina MacBook Pro with a 512 GB flash drive was $3,327. 

But even though most reviews of the Retina MacBook Pro have been highly positive, some negative opinions are starting to pop up.

Josh Duglin spent several days with the Retina MacBook and ended up giving it a "not recommended." He wasn't wowed by the retina display and found other reasons to prefer an alternative Apple laptop. Jason Stewart bought a Retina MacBook, played around with it for a while, then wrote "5 Reasons I Hate My New MacBook Pro: A Geek's Critique." 

These guys have helped spur me to consider a fourth option: go with the newly upgraded basic 13 inch MacBook Pro -- which is the computer I've known, and loved, for the past three and a half years.

It dawned on me that the basic MacBook Pro can be bought with a SSD (solid state drive) like the Air and Retina MacBooks have. That was one of the main reasons I wanted an Air or Retina machine. But for $500 a 256 GB SSD can be swapped for the standard 500 GB hard drive. I've been using a 256 GB hard drive on my 2008 MacBook Pro, so that's plenty of storage for me, especially considering how online storage via the Cloud is available.

Then I started thinking about how often I use my laptop's DVD drive: a lot. I regularly peruse ballroom dancing instructional videos, finding them quite a bit easier to watch on my MacBook Pro than on the DVD player attached to our TV. 

Sure, I could get an external SuperDrive. But then I'd have to carry it around with me whenever I wanted to watch a DVD. Likewise, neither the Air nor the Retina MacBook Pro have an Ethernet port. Our favorite Hawaii vacation spot only offers Internet access through wired Ethernet. So again, I could get a USB Ethernet adapter, but then I'd be carrying that around when I needed it.

The recently refreshed basic MacBook Pro still has a SuperDrive and an Ethernet port. It has much faster USB 3 ports, just like the Air and Retina MacBooks. A 13 inch 2.5 GHz basic MacBook Pro with 8 GB of memory, a 256 GB SSD drive, and AppleCare would cost me $2,048, about a hundred dollars more than an Air (however, after adding in an external DVD drive and Ethernet adapter, the price for the Air is about the same).

So I don't see much reason to buy an Air over the new non-retina MacBook Pro. I'm fine with the weight of the laptop I've been carrying around for three-plus years. Dropping a pound isn't worth the inconvenience of not having a built-in SuperDrive and Ethernet port.

The retina display is what keeps my head turning toward the new 15 inch flagship of Apple's laptop line. Before the end of the month I'll visit the Apple Store at Bridgeport Village, south of Portland, and see how much Wow! I feel from the retina display. It'll have to be quite a bit to overcome my current feeling that getting another basic MacBook Pro is the way I should go.

Then there's the Wired post about the Retina machine: "The New MacBook Pro: Unfixable, Unhackable, Untenable." Kyle Weins is not at all happy with Apple after he and his FixIt team tore a Retina MacBook Pro down. 

The Retina MacBook is the least repairable laptop we’ve ever taken apart: Unlike the previous model, the display is fused to the glass, which means replacing the LCD requires buying an expensive display assembly. The RAM is now soldered to the logic board — making future memory upgrades impossible. And the battery is glued to the case, requiring customers to mail their laptop to Apple every so often for a $200 replacement. 

He goes on to say:

The design pattern has serious consequences not only for consumers and the environment, but also for the tech industry as a whole.

...Once again, with another product announcement, Apple has presented the market with a choice. They have two professional laptops: one that is serviceable and upgradeable [the basic MacBook Pro], and one that is not [the Retina MacBook Pro].

They’re not exactly equivalent products — one is less expensive and supports expandable storage, and the other has a cutting-edge display, fixed storage capacity, and a premium price tag — but they don’t have the same name just to cause confusion. Rather, Apple is asking users to define the future of the MacBook Pro.

Weins argues that if people keep buying Apple products that are impossible or at least highly expensive to repair, and can't be upgraded after being purchased, we're going to keep getting more of the same. Another reason to keep me leaning toward replacing my basic MacBook Pro with... a refreshed basic MacBook Pro.

We have consistently voted for hardware that’s thinner rather than upgradeable. But we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Our purchasing decisions are telling Apple that we’re happy to buy computers and watch them die on schedule. When we choose a short-lived laptop over a more robust model that’s a quarter of an inch thicker, what does that say about our values?

Every time we buy a locked down product containing a non-replaceable battery with a finite cycle count, we’re voicing our opinion on how long our things should last. But is it an informed decision? When you buy something, how often do you really step back and ask how long it should last? If we want long-lasting products that retain their value, we have to support products that do so.

Today, we choose. If we choose the Retina display over the existing MacBook Pro, the next generation of Mac laptops will likely be less repairable still. When that happens, we won’t be able to blame Apple. We’ll have to blame ourselves.

Oregon has higher taxes and stronger economy. Hmmmm....

A few years ago Oregon raised taxes on businesses and high-income individuals. Tax-hating conservatives screamed warnings about how bad this would be for the state's economy, and how the "job creators" would be moving out.

Not happening. Here's a couple of recent headlines from the Oregonian.

Oregon economy growing at nation's second fastest rate
"Oregon's economic growth outpaced all but one state in 2011, driven largely by double-digit manufacturing gains."

Oregon payrolls continue to grow in May, but monthly figures cloud hiring picture
"Oregon employers added 6,900 jobs last month, according to the state's monthly report. That's equal to 10 percent of all jobs added in the U.S. in May, when hiring nationwide slumped to a pace less than one-third that of the first three months of the year."

Oregon's electric cars shouldn't pay a miles-driven tax

I'm not exactly unbiased on the subject of Oregon moving away from using the gasoline tax to pay for roads. We owned an all-electric Nissan Leaf for about six months, and now have a semi-electric Chevy Volt.

Over on Blue Oregon, Kari Chisholm talks about "GPS tax: the terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea that just won't die." 

He perusasively describes why outfitting cars with a GPS device that tracks mileage driven within the state is all of those negative adjectives in his blog post title.

• How will Oregon force all vehicles to get a GPS device installed? There are plenty of very old cars on the road. (My parents are still driving a 1980 Volvo, and I owned a 1967 Barracuda just a few years ago.)

• ODOT claims they've resolved civil liberties objections because the new GPS devices are privately manufactured. That's nonsense. The data will still be stored somewhere. And unlike your phone, you won't be able to turn it off if you're going somewhere you'd rather not be tracked.

• What's the cost? I find it hard to believe that the cost of all these GPS devices - and the enforcement required to ensure that every Oregon vehicle has one - is going to be justified by the revenue that they produce. Show me the money, ODOT.

Also, out of state drivers wouldn't have to pay the tax, whereas a gasoline tax is collected at every pump in Oregon. (This also is a strong argument for a sales tax, but that's a whole other issue.)

I like Kari's proposal for a tax on tires as an alternative way of assuring that those who do the most damage to roads, and drive the most, pay more for using Oregon roads. As a commenter on his post noted, bigger tires are much more expensive than smaller tires. And tires on high-end cars tend to be larger than those on cheaper cars, making a tire tax linked to ability to pay.

This also makes sense to me:

And worst of all? This entire effort is designed to tax energy-efficient vehicles. Check out this absurdity from the O's editorial board:

The tax as a user fee is no longer fair. When it comes to road repair, those who drive thirsty road hogs are now subsidizing those who drive efficient and unconventionally powered cars. This trend needs to reverse...

This trend needs to reverse? Seriously?! Electric vehicles and hybrids should subsidize "thirsty road hogs"? Are you kidding me? No, no, a thousand times no. We need to pay for highway maintenance. Insisting that carbon-spewing gas-guzzlers shoulder a larger portion of the expense is also an excellent way to reduce pollution. We shouldn't do anything that pushes consumers away from fuel-efficient vehicles. (And not just because we want to reduce carbon pollution. But fuel-efficient vehicles are lighter and thus put less wear on the roads, too.)

Anyone who understands what human-caused carbon pollution is doing to our planet knows all about the hidden costs of burning fossil fuels. It's exceedingly simplistic and irrational to only focus on the need to repair and build highways when considering how to tax electric cars.

The entire costs and benefits of driving gasoline-powered versus electricity-powered automobiles need to be taken into account. This is why federal/state tax credits for buying electric cars are justified: these cars provide important societal benefits, in addition to the personal benefits that accrue to owners of them.

(We love our Volt. Only have had it for five days, but we already have found a lot to like and little to dislike with the car.)

Here's Kari Chisholm's entire list of ways to pay for roads, other than Oregon's currently absurdly low gasoline tax.

1. Raise Oregon's gas tax to match our neighbors. In 2011, we raised it six cents to 30 cents/gallon -- but we're still 5.3 cents behind California and 7.5 cents behind Washington. 

2. Inflation-adjust the gas tax. It should go up every year based on inflation (or more). Otherwise, the purchasing power of those highway maintenance dollars will just erode over time.

3. Raise car registration fees. I'm sympathetic (a little) to the idea that electric vehicles don't pay much at all for highway maintenance. Right now, all passenger vehicles pay just $43/year for registration (plus $19 if you're in Multnomah County). Bump that $10-25 and inflation-adjust it.

4. Tax tires. 35 states do; Oregon doesn't (pdf). A tire tax would hit both gas-guzzlers and fuel-efficient cars, and would disproportionately affect those who drive the most miles. (Hey, look! A highway-maintenance fee that is directly tied to highway usage - without a GPS.) Most states are between a buck or two; California charges $1.75/tire. I'd consider doubling or tripling the tire tax for studded tires - which cause the most damage to our roads.

New Retina MacBook Pro or MacBook Air? Laptop lust will decide.

Like lots of other Apple addicts, I was glued to my computer this morning, watching Engadget's live blog of the WWDC 2012 conference where new Apple products were eagerly anticipated.

The rumors were pretty much right-on. A new 15 inch MacBook Pro with a retina display (like on the iPhone 4s) was the highlight of the show. For me, at least.

I've had my 13 inch MacBook Pro for what seems like centuries. In computer years, that's about right -- got it in October 2008. It's been almost completely trouble free. It looks virtually brand new, but my laptop is feeling its age.

I get the dreaded "spinning ball" much more often than I used to, especially when numerous applications are open. Closing programs can take a long time. I've used up about three-fourths of the 250 GB hard drive. My three year AppleCare contract expired last year.

So I've been looking forward to learning what Apple was up to, MacBook Pro-wise. Also, MacBook Air-wise, as I'm attracted to flash storage (no hard disk) and ditching the built-in optical drive, which I mainly only use to watch dance lesson DVD's.

After the WWDC event was over, the online Apple store returned to life with the new Retina MacBook Pro prominently displayed, which is basically a blend between the old MacBook Pro and Air. That's the laptop I lust for. But my pocketbook wonders if an Air would suffice.

I priced three options of the new models, with each including 8 GB of memory, a portable superdrive, and AppleCare: (1) a 13 inch 2.0 GHz MacBook Air with a 256 GB flash drive was $1,927; (2) a 15 inch 2.3 GHz Retina MacBook Pro with a 256 GB flash drive was $2,625; (3) a 15 inch 2.6 GHz Retina MacBook Pro with a 512 GB flash drive was $3,327. 

Judging from comments on AppleInsider posts, I'm not the only one who wishes the new MacBook Air had a retina display. But people much more knowledgeable than me were saying that the retina display sucks up a lot of battery power, so it wouldn't fit well with the Air -- given current technology.

Plus, Apple isn't stupid. Make the Air equal to the Pro, display-wise, and that will draw sales away from the more expensive Retina MacBook Pro.

Watching the video about the Retina Pro on the Apple Store, it looks like it's aimed at high-powered users. I'm not going to be designing a nuclear power plant from the bed of a pickup, or handling six video feeds at a time as a TV director.

Nor am I likely going to be editing photos down to the micro-pixel, or needing to see colors precisely and beautifully displayed.

But damn!

I sure like the looks, and specs, of the Retina MacBook Pro. Option 2 above looks most appealing, since I don't need 512 GB of flash storage or a super fast processor. Reportedly USB 3 is ten times faster than USB 2, so an external hard drive would seemingly suffice for storing large video files. 

If not, there's always Thunderbolt, which is twice as fast as USB 3.

It'll take a while for me to ponder the pros and cons of the new Retina MacBook Pro. Reviews will be coming in the next few weeks as computer geeks get their hands on the new Apple products. The Retina Pro does seem revolutionary in many ways, while the updated Air strikes me as only evolutionary.

And it helped me to put things in perspective, cost-wise, to pull out my 2008 MacBook Pro file and remind myself what it cost back then: about $2,000, which is the 2012 price of a MacBook Air with double the memory (8 GB vs. 4 GB) and a 250 GB flash drive rather than a same-size hard drive.

Apple keeps raising the bar on great computers. Their ability to arouse product lust among the Apple faithful, like me, also remains strong. For $700 more, the Retina MacBook Pro might be the way I end up wanting to go.

Welcome to our day old car baby, Chevy Volt

Aw, so cute. When I saw her for the first time she was just five miles old. My wife and I immediately bonded with her. Liked her lines. And her soothing feminine Viridian Joule light greenish color. 

Here she is after we brought her home yesterday from Salem's Capitol Chevrolet dealership.

All on electric power, mostly on the freeway. We then drove into town that evening for a dance lesson and practice. Voltie shifted to gasoline power only for the last mile. Battery range was almost exactly as expected, about 35 miles.

We ordered the Volt, so had to wait several months to get it. There weren't any already built cars available with the options we wanted -- including the Viridian Joule exterior and dark console interior.

Both were good choices. The semi-standard white console looks horrible, in our utterly subjective opinion.

To get black, we had to order leather seats and other "premium trim" goodies. The total price for the car was pretty high, but we're leasing it on a three-year 1%, 10,000 miles a year deal. That made the Volt seem a lot more affordable, especially since the price included a healthy GM rebate and the effect of GM taking the $7,500 electric car federal tax credit.

I'll have more to say about the Volt after we've driven it for longer than one day. So far, my wife and I are impressed. The main problem I'm having is getting used to looking at the Chevy emblem. I haven't owned an American car for over 35 years, and never thought I would again. 

This photo belies that inaccurate assumption.

Rear visibility is my only serious gripe. Changing lanes requires quite a bit more caution than was the case in our previous electric car, a Nissan Leaf, which felt a lot more airy. The Volt is much more sporty, though. The Volt's seats also are vastly more comfortable and supportive than the Leaf's.

And likely we'll be able to get around town most days solely on electric power, as we were able to do with the Leaf. Yet with the comfort of knowing that over 300 miles of gasoline powered range are available.

Plus, I got an absolutely free bag of corn nuts out of the deal, thanks to Kelly Stewart -- who is Capitol's Toyota sales manager, yet agreed to work with us on buying the Volt since we'd bought two Prius's and a Highlander Hybrid from him previously.

Kelly is a carsalesperson delight.

Personable, straightforward, honest, reliable, lighthearted. That's how I got the corn nuts: via our mutual sense of humor. A few weeks ago I emailed Kelly, asking him if he knew the status of our Volt order. Last we knew it was sitting on a train in Ohio.

He responded:

I am checking at which way station it is currently resting… Should be here in less than a week if I were guessing. I will give you an update as soon as I get a call back from GM satellite tracking…

That stimulated a great idea. I immediately replied with:

Thanks. Appreciate your checking the Volt's progress by satellite. Alternatively, here's an idea: pack up a small sleeping bag, water, and lots of bags of corn nuts. Get one of your employees to drive you out to Wyoming, or wherever, and find the train our Volt is on. Sneak onto the rail car. 

Then send us Twitter updates every half hour, complete with a photo of the countryside and GPS coordinates. If you do that, I'll nominate you for the June Chevy Customer Service of the Month Award (leaving aside the minor detail that you work at a Toyota dealership). 

Think about it. You'll get out of the office, and we'll be assured of knowing where the Volt is at every moment. (You can sleep in the 29 minutes between Twitter updates.)

Sadly, Kelly didn't do as I asked.

He did, however, hand me a bag of corn nuts as soon as we met him at the Capitol Chevrolet dealership. Nice gesture, though I would have preferred if he'd ridden along on the train with our car, sending us Twitter updates.

Anyway, we like the Volt, so all is forgiven. Well, except for the fact that my wife and I now already are both addicted to Corn Nuts, a snack we hadn't eaten for many years.

I assume Capitol Chevrolet will be paying for our treatment in a Corn Nut 12-step program.

(Thumbs up also to equally personable Allan Hadley, Capitol Chevrolet/Subaru Fleet Manager, who worked with Kelly and us on finalizing the sale yesterday. My wife and I appreciate car salespersons who act like normal human beings, and treat customers the same way -- as contrasted with the traditional sales games played by car dealership employees. After all, a high quality product should almost sell itself; just look at how Apple is doing.)

Zu Zu, our new dog, wears flowers in her hair

Finally, an almost-summer-feeling Oregon afternoon. Laurel, me, and our two canine dog pack went for a walk around the neighborhood lake. 

A big patch of wildflowers caught my eye.

Also, Laurel's. 

While I was getting out my iPhone and snapping some shots of the flowers, she was adorning Zu Zu with some daisies. Of course, dog photography being what it is, as soon as we tried to pose Zu Zu she shook violently, then laid down on her back.

Which messed up her flower arrangement. Still, it brought back memories of the 60's to see our new dog with flowers in her fur.

Eight reasons to feel better about the Wisconsin recall election

After Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker survived his recall election last Tuesday, I was disappointed but not depressed. Democrats took back control of the state Senate and there were other reasons to not feel like the progressive sky was falling.

Now I'm feeling even better.

Joshua Holland helped boost my spirits with his "8 Ways Delusional Right-Wingers Are Blowing Wisconsin Out of Proportion." Thanks, Joshua.

In the aftermath of the vote, conservatives, proving typically magnanimous in victory, spun the results like a top. They claimed the outcome spelled doom for Obama this fall, marked the death of the labor movement and was a pure reflection of voters' love for Scott Walker's economy-crushing austerity policies.

We shouldn't kid ourselves; it was obviously a serious defeat for the progressive movement. Yet the triumphalism is more a manifestation of conservatives' wishful thinking than a reflection of objective reality. Here are eight reasons why.

[I've just listed the "headline" of each reason. Read the piece to get more detail.]

1. Wisconsinites Just Didn't Like the Idea of Recalling a Sitting Governor

2. Wealthy Wisconsinites Voted Their Self-Interest

3. About Those Union Households

4. How Could it Be a Referendum on Union Rights When Nobody Ran on Union Rights?

5. This Is What Plutocracy Looks Like

6. Very Little Changed From 2010, Except the Number of Voters

7. A Wisconsin Race That Tells Us Virtually Nothing About November

8. Don't Forget 2011

Northwest only region of U.S. cooler than normal in 2012

This won't surprise Oregonians and Washingtonians bummed out over our cold, wet spring. Which has extended into summer. Snow was falling at pass levels recently, and it's freaking June!

Almost everywhere in the United States but the northwest, temperatures have been warmer than average in 2012. In many places, record-breaking warmer. Our relatives in the mid-west have been bragging for months about going swimming in 80 degree weather.

Climate Progress tells the tale.

Spring 2012 beat 1910, which had held the title for record warm spring, by a healthy margin of 2°F. No doubt much of this was driven by the massive heat wave that gripped the country during March, but unusual warmth continued during April and May, albeit not as intense. Such warming trends are consistent with both the influence of manmade global warming, particularly the prevalence of record warm nighttime temperatures, and natural variability has also favored warmer-than-average conditions so far this year. Studies show that as greenhouse gases continue to increase in the atmosphere, the odds of heat extremes are growing as well.

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the spring of 2012 “was the culmination of the warmest March, third warmest April, and second warmest May. This marks the first time that all three months during the spring season ranked among the 10 warmest, since records began in 1895.”

Downtown Salem (Oregon) needs to lose some lanes

I'm writing this blog post in my favorite downtown Salem coffee house, the Beanery.

The atmosphere both inside and outside is pleasant, but in no way electric, energetic, exciting, enthusiastic, or any other "e" word I can think of to describe what downtown Salem could be, yet isn't.

That's Salem, the little engine that could, but hasn't.

On May 4, 1000 Friends of Oregon brought together a bunch of people to discuss what's right and wrong with downtown Salem. An overview of the meeting is interesting reading. I heartily agree with:

But local residents and businesspeople have a lot of reasonable complaints: downtown streets are wide, the lanes are many, and the traffic is aggressive by design. As long as the connective tissue between the historic blocks, the bookend public amenities, and the larger urban renewal area remains oriented to the automobile, Salem’s historic district and larger downtown will inevitably languish and suffer the fate of our shortsighted post-war transportation decisions.

...In Salem we heard talk of building a new Willamette River Crossing, saw the new Salem Conference Center, and learned about a recent push to allow drive-thru banks downtown. While it’s good for planners, citizens, and policy-makers to weigh decisions like these, what downtown Salem needs most is something much more obvious: a walkable and calm street network that compliments the textured historic buildings of its historic district.

After all, their builders didn't design them to be used and loved from the window of a Prius, but used and loved by shoppers, residents, and tenants (and their wallets). Slowing and narrowing the rivers of traffic lanes will connect the islands of great buildings that today sit there, waiting for the inevitable day when they realize their full potential once again.  

Astute observations. 

There's so much potential in downtown Salem. The historic buildings, trees, quaint alleys, diversity of small businesses, and proximity to the riverfront bode well for a downtown that's a lot more alive than the current semi-slumbering city center.

Compared to other vital downtowns I've visited, Salem -- as noted above -- is overly dominated by wide, busy, car-filled thoroughfares, such as Liberty and Commercial Streets. Getting from one side of a street to the other side is more difficult than it should be if Salem wants a downtown where people enjoy wandering around to various businesses and attractions.

I realize that Salem and Sisters, Oregon are very different cities in lots of ways. Size, street layout, atmosphere, etc. etc. Still, Salem could learn from how Sisters is improving its already pedestrian-friendly two-lane main street through downtown.

When visitors and residents feel that a town wants them to walk around and stay a while, as contrasted with feeling like a second-class citizen to cars, businesses in the area will benefit. 

Of course, there have to be good reasons for people to venture to downtown Salem. My three word advice is Strange It Up!, a concept which somebody told me was brought up at the 1000 Friends meeting about downtown Salem.

Brian, thanks for the blog.  So I attended this event downtown this afternoon put on by 1000 friends: http://www.friends.org/node/1423  Attendees included:  City councillor Chuck Bennett, [former] mayor Mike Swaim, along with Carole Smith and Eric Kittleson of the Salem Downtown Partnership.  Eric actually said we need to "strange it up"!  

So I thought you would appreciate that.

Absolutely. Made my day. Now, all we in Salem do is make strange it up more than words. 

PETA now has a XXX web site. It's animalistic!

Way to go, PETA. You're making good use of the new .xxx domain option with www.peta.xxx

Personally, I wasn't turned on by seeing porn star Ron Jeremy featured on the home page, but my male eyes quickly turned leftward (natural for me) to an image of Sasha Grey -- another former porn star who supports the animal side of both humans and animals.

PETA enticed my throbbing attention deeper into the site with...

PETA is not new to the world of adult entertainment. In fact, we've been collaborating with some of the most legendary XXX stars for years. Thanks to the availability of .xxx domain names, we can now house all our adult content in one spot. Stick around and take a look at some of PETA's most sizzling ads of all time.

Have a look. Then read the reasons for PETA's naked ad campaigns.

Wisconsin recall election disappointing -- but everything will be all right

What goes up, comes down. A loss today often presages a win tomorrow. The only certainty in politics is that nothing is certain.

I'd hoped Governor Scott Walker would lose today's Wisconsin recall election, but polling showed that the prospects of this happening were low. His win is disappointing to me, not depressing. 

I feel for the legions of hard-working progressives in Wisconsin who worked long and hard to recall Walker, collecting more than a million signatures. After subscribing to the Twitter feed of Wisconsin activist Kelly Steele, every day I enjoyed reading his passionate tweets about the ups and downs of the campaign to replace Walker.

Voters have spoken.

The turnout was greater than expected, so it's difficult to argue that voter apathy or suppression was a big factor in Walker's win. The people of Wisconsin wanted Scott Walker to remain as Governor. That's what they'll get. 

And then... who knows? 

I remember how down I felt in November 2004. George Bush had been re-elected president. Measure 37, a citizen initiative that trashed Oregon's pioneering land use system, had passed here in Oregon. I felt terrible.

Three years later, in 2007, Measure 49 was passed by 62% of Oregon voters. Measure 37 was no more. Four years later, in 2008, Barack Obama was handily elected president. I felt wonderful after both elections.

Change happens.

The seeds of change begin to sprout as soon as policies begin to be implemented after an election. What looked good to voters back then, is seen as bad now. Republicans currently are on a roll in Wisconsin. How far and how long their fortunes will continue on an upward swing? No one knows.

A few days after Measure 37 passed in 2004, I wrote a blog post called "Mini-secret of universe revealed." After describing a psychedelic-fueled insight from the 1960's (the universe is a paper bag turned inside out), I talked about a more believable political insight: whatever is going to happen is what has to happen.

I offer my 2004 thoughts to those in Wisconsin who are disconsolate tonight, perhaps wondering whether their state will survive Scott Walker's recall victory. As noted above, after three years Oregon voters reversed course and struck down Measure 37.

Today, Oregon's land use system is back to protecting farm and forest land. Measure 37 is just a bad memory. Here's what I said in the aftermath of a disappointing election, starting off with a reference to my mescaline-aided insight:

Now, thirty-six years later, my cosmic insights aren’t as powerful or as bizarre, but they keep on coming. Mini-secrets of the universe get revealed without any help from chemistry, other than what is bubbling away naturally in my brain. Last night I had one of those flashes while reading an Oregonian article about the effects of Measure 37.

I was immersed in the usual funk I get into when I think about how Oregon’s pioneering land use laws run the risk of being trashed by this ill-conceived measure. For it allows owners to be exempted from a law passed after they acquired their property if it reduces the value of their land. The other option is for government to pay them for this reduction in value, but nobody expects cash-strapped Oregon to be able to come up with the money to do this. Instead, land use laws simply will be waived.

I was moodily visualizing convenience stores popping up in the middle of residential neighborhoods, and gravel pits being dug next to state parks, when a crystal-clear realization broke into my meandering thoughts.

Whatever is going to happen is what has to happen! All right, I realize that this sounds as meaningless as a paper bag turned inside out! But the difference is that my clear-headed 2004 insight still rings true to me, even the day after. What came home to me is that the 60% of people who voted for Measure 37, as for the 51% who voted for Bush, are going to experience what has to happen as a result of their choice.

The universe is going to work things out perfectly. What goes around, comes around. Whatever you sow, you reap. Garbage in, garbage out. Pick your cliché, the meaning is the same: the changes caused by Measure 37 are going to result in exactly the right effects.

“Good,” “bad,” these aren’t what I mean by “right.” “Right” means that the universe always keeps itself in perfect balance, and I don’t have to worry my little liberal Green head that anything unjust is going to happen—with Measure 37, Bush’s second term, or anything else.

I felt like a big weight was lifted from my psyche. It isn’t up to me to right supposed wrongs. The cosmos takes care of that.

Soon, Laurel and I hope, a lead petitioner of Measure 37 will find that someone is going to build a ghastly environmental and aesthetic disaster next to his or her home after taking advantage of the Measure’s lifting of a land use law. When I read about this in the Oregonian, I’ll smile.

Everything is going to be all right. I’ll remember that the universe told me that on November 14, 2004. Now, I’ve just got to figure out how this connects to the whole paper-bag-inside-out thing. A Nobel prize could still be in the cards, in my own mind at least.

I'm not worried about Southern Oregon land use pilot program

The headline in today's Salem Statesman Journal story said, "Pilot program loosens grip on land use plans." Subhead: "Door opened for southern Oregon counties."

Well, yeah. But the door isn't open very far. 

As I noted in a blog post last March, Governor Kitzhaber's executive order and the legislature's appropriation of $550,000 to support regional land use planning looks to me a lot more like political expediency than a significant policy shift.

So if HB 4095 was unnecessary and didn't even get a hearing in the joint Ways and Means Committee, why was $550,000 in general fund taxpayer money allocated by that committee to enable three Oregon counties to do what already can be done under existing laws and regulations?

Apparently because lots of legislative "horse-trading" goes on at the end of a session. Republicans were stymied on some of their favorite bills and wanted to be able to point to some wins, no matter how small, in exchange for supporting Democratic legislative priorities.

Also, many people view Oregon's land use system as being too rigid.

So giving the three southern Oregon counties some money to support an attempt to come up with regional definitions of farm and forest land throws a bone to the barking dogs who would prefer to see land use planning go away completely.

From what I've been able to learn, whatever this pilot program in Jackson, Josephine, and Douglas counties allows to be done, the counties already were able to do. Meaning, regional definitions of farm and forest lands always have been possible under Oregon's statewide planning system.

So now the counties have some money to do what they could have done years ago. No big deal. 

Reading Kitzhaber's executive order, albeit quickly, made me feel even more reassured that right-wing county commissioners in those southern Oregon counties won't be able to make an end run around the planning goals which protect irreplaceable farm and forest lands.

There are a lot of hoops that have to be jumped through before these counties can make any significant changes to how resource (farm and forest) lands are managed. They still must be protected from over-development, with very good reasons given for why farm or forest land should be converted to residential, commercial, industrial, or other uses.

My prediction remains: this pilot program is a bone that's been thrown to haters of Oregon's land use system so they can gnaw away on attempting to reconcile their extreme fantasies of paving over farm and forest lands with the realities of preserving our state's agricultural and timber resource bases.

Final note: if Josephine County wants to encourage economic development, the place to start isn't in relaxing land use laws. Try funding your law enforcement agencies first. Check this out:

Following the defeat of a local law enforcement tax levy, officials in Josephine County have begun to dismantle the sheriff's office and public safety operations this week.

Due to lack of funding, the sheriff's office has laid off 19 (of 25) road deputies, reduced its K-9 unit to one dog, and closed several divisions, including its major crimes unit and non-emergency calls department. The list gets worse from there.

How much worse? Yesterday, 39 inmates were released from the county jail. Local news crews were on the scene for the release.

Josephine County has ridiculously low property taxes, lowest in the state. Yet ultra-conservative voters decided they'd rather let government services such as public safety essentially disappear rather than pay any more taxes, even if county taxes still would be lower than average.

Great move, Josephine County. 

Just picture a growing software firm in the Bay Area who is considering relocating to a less urban setting. Yet the staff still wants to live somewhere with good schools and public services. 

"Josephine County: no sheriff's deputies or jail, but really low taxes! Just make sure you bring your own guns and concealed weapons permit." 

Not a great economic development recruiting slogan. 

Salem "cougar" is almost certainly a cat

Lock the doors! Keep children inside! Armor up your Chihuahuas! A cougar has been spotted in a south Salem residential area!

Except... the animal almost certainly is a cat, notwithstanding the uncritical acceptance of the cougar sighting by Statesman Journal reporter Dan Bender. (Note to Bender: "sighting" is when you see something; "siting," the word you used, is when something is positioned somewhere.)

This is a real cougar.

This is the "cougar" spotted lying on some groundcover during daytime in the backyard of a south Salem home. Comments on the KATU story are decidedly (and appropriately) skeptical about this animal being a cougar. Some samples:

Actually looking at the other pictures it looks a lot smaller than 50lbs. Id say 20. Fur is deceptive. I initially thought canada lynx, but it looks too small, and if it were a juvenile, its feet would be a lot bigger to indicate it would be a 55lb cat someday. This looks like a possible hybrid... 

Looks to me like a nice healthy house cat. Manx cross (short tail). House cat face. No tufts on ears (lynx), stripes and short tail (Bob cat cross maybe), really not very big as lynx or certainly not big enough for a full grown cougar .

Not a cougar... also doesn't look like it weighs 45 lbs or anything close... This cat has a gorgeous, thick fur coat, which would make it look larger... Ears look like a lynx, with the tufted tops... Tail's kind of long for a bobcat, but could be a cross, I guess... That face looks like a housecat.... I'll bet this is a hybrid of some kind... 

City folk are so funny! A cougar, female, can weigh from 64-141 lbs. and a male ranges from 115-220 lbs. This looks nothing like that, lol.

Just doesn't seem to look like a cougar. More like a Maine Coon cat or possibly a mix of some kind from a Bengal mix, Golden Cat mix, or something along that line.

My guess would be its a Savannah breed. They are a cross between a Serval and a domestic cat. Serval lineage would give it the short tail and spots and striped tail as well as the big pointed ears. Svannahs get pretty big and the thick fur could be a result of a Maine Coon in its heritage. They are expensive cats but if its enjoying being free then I wish it the best of luck.

Google Pixie-Bob images and you'll see cats that look a lot like this one. They seem to have a variety of tail lengths as far as I noted in the photos. This is NOT a cougar and while it bears a resemblance to a bobcat, the coloring is different and the tail is too long. It could be a domestic/bobcat cross as noted by others, but I think this is a large domestic kitty....who probably doesn't care a hoot about all the commotion it caused while merely trying to take a nap!

Back in 2005 I blogged about "Oregon cougar sighting really a kitty cat." Seven years later, it looks like the same mistake occurred. Which shows, as I noted in that earlier post, how ludicrous it is to base cougar management policies on reported sightings. 

Obviously many people can't tell the difference between a large house cat sunning itself, and a wild cougar. Both, of course, are essentially harmless to humans. (Well, actually I've been scratched by a cat many times, but never hurt in any way by a cougar.)

UPDATE: Yes, you read it here first. Beat the Statesman Journal newspaper by two days, which is reporting that the "cougar" is indeed a cat.

Experts determined that the animal spotted Friday in residential South Salem and was thought to be a cougar wasn’t one.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist reviewed photos of the animal and determined that the animal, which prompted alerts of public safety, was not a cougar.

Police said the photos might be of a Maine-Coon cat, a large domesticated cat that often weighs more than 20 pounds and is noticeably larger than a normal house cat, police said.

Weak jobs report points to Republican failings

Not as many jobs were created in May, 2012 as were expected. This is bad news for the unemployed. But Obama isn't to blame, notwithstanding Republican glee over the misery of Americans without a job.

As I noted before, the question to ask is whether the United States is better off after the past several years of Republican obstructionism, where the #1 goal of the G.O.P. has been to stop Obama from winning a second term.

So it doesn't make sense to blame Obama for a weak recovery, since after the 2010 election he hasn't been able to get key economic stimulus bills through the filibuster-crazy Republicans in the Senate and the Nobama (Nothing for Obama) sit-on-their-handers in the House.

Congressional Republicans, it isn't fair to chastize Obama for failed economic policies when you haven't allowed him to implement them. If anyone should be chastized, it is the Republicans who have put politics above country.

As a New York Times story says:

“He needs to call the Republicans out,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland. “He needs to remind people he got zero help rescuing the economy when he came to office, and on these new jobs bills, the Republicans are simply trying to run out the clock.”

What Republicans want to do is repeat the failures of the Bush administration that got us into our current economic mess. If tax cuts for the wealthy, military budget increases, and lack of regulations are such great ideas for stimulating the economy, why didn't they work during the Bush years?

Hopefully, in Obama's second term he'll get a better chance to become the president that Republicans are criticizing, yet he hasn't had the opportunity to be.

Reality is respected on this here blog

Reality is a wonderful thing. Actually, the only thing. Show me something that isn't real, and I'll say "You've shown me nothing."

And that's what some commenters on this blog want to do: pretend they've got a fact in their hand when all they possess is an empty palm of subjectivity. 

Which, I'll admit, is something real.

But reality comes in two main varieties, communal/objective and individual/subjective. Both are wonderful, admirable, essential, inescapable. It's when an attempt is made to pass off one as the other that I, as moderator of this blog, rule "No way!"

Global warming and Obama's birth certificate are a couple of examples. Human-caused global warming is a fact. So is President Obama being born in Hawaii. 

These sorts of facts are communal. They can't be hijacked by anybody. Or at least, they shouldn't be. Politicians, almost always right-wing in this country, do try to proclaim what a fact is without demonstrable evidence to back up their assertion.

Such as...North Carolina legislators hope to pass a law requiring that global warming science be ignored when calculating the future sea level on the state's shores. Crazy.

I'm not interested in contributing to that sort of disrespect of our communal reality.

So that's why I don't publish comments that are clearly at odds with the facts. If a commenter has solid evidence that human-caused global warming isn't happening, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. Maybe you'll get a Nobel prize. Likewise, if a commenter has solid evidence that Obama's birth certificate is fake, release it. Maybe you'll guarantee Romney's election.

But if all you have are links to some crazy non-factual web sites, forget about using this blog as your soap box. 

Because what the world needs now (and always) are people willing to agree on basic facts, even if they disagree about what the facts mean. This is how political discourse moves from meaningless name-calling to reasonable debate.

The Earth is warming. Because of what we humans are doing. These facts have to be agreed upon before we can discuss what this means. Maybe you think global warming will benefit people. OK, I disagree. Let's each bring out our arguments.

But if you want to ignore the scientific consensus about global climate change, there's no basis for an intelligent discussion. 

If we each have seen a movie, we can talk about what we liked and disliked about it. However, if I demand that you seriously consider my opinion about a movie that I'm clueless about, you have a right to say, "You're acting crazy."

Craziness can be fun, but not when it is masquerading as reality. That way lies madness, when someone demands that other people embrace their unreal view of the world. If you like country music, fine. I don't. We can agree to disagree about our likes. 

Opinions are different from facts. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Sometimes the line is blurry between them. With issues like global warming and Obama's birthplace, the line is clear. 

Which is why I won't allow comments on this blog that try to pass off opinion as fact, when the facts are crystal-clear. Yes, facts can change. Until this occurs, though, a fact is a fact, and an opinion is an opinion.

Human-caused global warming is a fact. So is Obama's U.S. citizenship. If you want to say otherwise on the WWW, do it someplace other than this blog.