HinesSight

Global warming likely fueled the "Frankenstorm"

Yeah, global warming deniers, I know what you're going to say. "Any single weather event can't be conclusively tied to climate change."

True.

But we're talking odds here, likelihoods. That's how science works. Nothing is completely certain. Even the best documented law of nature could be falsified, given certain evidence.

Yet when freakishly powerful storms and unusually dry/hot summers and other historically improbable weather events keep coming along, one after the other, way more frequently than has happened in decades or centuries or even thousands of years...

This should make us think: global warming. 

"A $20 billion, 1000-year Frankenstorm? Sandy Slams East Coast, Smashes All-TIme Records"

Coincidentally, as Climate Progress reported last week, Munich Re, a top reinsurer, released a major new study that for the first time, links the rapid rise in North American extreme weather catastrophes to manmade climate change:

“Climate­-driven changes are already evident over the last few decades for severe thunderstorms, for heavy precipitation and flash flood­ing, for hurricane activity, and for heatwave, drought and wild­-fire dynamics in parts of North America.”

"Trenberth: Hurricane Sandy Mixes Super-Storm Conditions With Climate Change"

Global climate change has contributed to the higher sea surface and ocean temperatures, and a warmer and moister atmosphere, and its effects are in the range of 5 to 10%. Natural variability and weather has provided the perhaps optimal conditions of a hurricane running into extra-tropical conditions to make for a huge intense storm, enhanced by global warming influences.

"Did Climate Change Help Create 'Frankenstorm'?"

The storm comes at a unique time politically. In August, the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida was disrupted by strong rain and flooding caused by Hurricane Isaac. Two days later in his acceptance speech, Mitt Romney mocked President Obama’s pledge to deal with climate change and “slow the rise of the oceans” — causing uproarious laughter among delegates. And for the first time since 1988, the presidential candidates did not talk about climate change during debates — even as data shows that the U.S. is experiencing the most extreme weather ever recorded.

“The climate has shifted to a new state capable of delivering rare and unprecedented weather events,” explained meteorologist Jeff Masters earlier this year.

So with the image of horrific storm surge flooding along the East Coast fresh in our minds, let's remember how Mitt Romney mocked the prospect of stopping the rise of the Earth's oceans.

Bill Clinton does it in a memorable minute.

 

Transcript:

I was actually listening closely to what the candidates said in these debates. In the first debate [actually, Romney's convention speech], the triumph of the moderate Mitt Romney. You remember what he did? He ridiculed the president. Ridiculed the president for his efforts to fight global warming in economically beneficial ways. He said, ‘Oh, you’re going to turn back the seas.’ In my part of America, we would like it if someone could’ve done that yesterday. All up and down the East Coast, there are mayors, many of them Republicans, who are being told, ‘You’ve got to move these houses back away from the ocean. You’ve got to lift them up. Climate change is going to raise the water levels on a permanent basis. If you want your town insured, you have to do this.’ In the real world, Barack Obama’s policies work better.

Arrival of my Buddha nature has been delayed

Shopping at the south Salem Fred Meyer store today provided more evidence that my boundless compassion for all sentient beings, a.k.a. Buddha nature, has some room to grow.

Scene: I'm pleased to find a checkout lane in the grocery section that only has two people in front of me. Hey, I may be retired, but I'm a busy guy. This is only the second stop in my Trader Joe's - Fred Meyer - LifeSource Natural Foods route. I've already been to Les Schwab Tires and the post office. I've got to pick up our tuned-up bicycles at a bike shop. In short, I've got Important Things Left To Do. 

My inner thoughts: Great, the first woman is paying for her stuff. Second woman only has a few things on the belt. Sweet! I'll be out of here real soon. Right after that woman finds her money in that huge purse. Oh, great! She's got bills in her hand. Counting them out... give them to the checker... let's get going. Geez, no, I don't believe it. Now she's rummaging through more compartments, more zippers, more recesses in her purse. Must be looking for exact change... screw it, lady, just hand over the money and let the checker give you some change. Can't you see how you're holding up two other customers. Jesus fucking Christ! Is it a freaking surprise to you that you have to PAY after you go through a check out line? Couldn't you have rehearsed this at home? So happy I'm not her husband... oh, thank you sir... he's handing her some money from his wallet. Take it! TAKE IT! Forget finding the exact amount. FORGET IT! Yikes. Can't be. She's STILL looking through her purse. You're done, lady, you're DONE!!! The checker is trying to give you your receipt. Call it a day! Game over! Move on and let normal competent shoppers get through this lane!

Outer words spoken by the woman in front of me: Gosh, I know what it's like to not be able to find a bunch of money that you thought was in your purse. That's happened to all of us. It's a horrible feeling, not knowing where it went. I'm so sorry for you.

OK, in my Buddha nature defense I got to the checkout lane after the woman who said those words. She was standing closer to the woman searching through her purse for what seemed like eons. Maybe she heard the searcher-woman say something I couldn't hear.

Or missed hearing because of the loud complaining that was going on inside my head, me speaking to me. 

This experience taught me a lesson which I will soon forget, because I always do: while it may seem obvious that many people in the world are fucking idiots whose only mission in life is to drive me crazy through actions clearly designed to irritate and delay me, the truth might possibly be rather different -- that I am not the wise center of the world around which fools revolve, but merely one of the pack, like them neither inherently wise nor foolish, just human.

Nyah, I'll think tomorrow, or in the next few minutes. That makes too much sense. I'm surrounded by fucking fools trying to drive me insane! 

Obama campaign calls out Romney's Chrysler lie

Ah, I so like plain talk in politics.

Lie is a wonderful word that usually gets disguised by "falsehood," "untruth," or some other polite term that may be appropriate for mild lies, but are too weak for whopper lies.

Like Mitt Romney's claim that Chrysler and Obama are working together to ship American jobs to China, since Jeeps supposedly will be made there instead of the United States.

That's a lie. The Romney campaign must have known this. Or they could have learned the truth with a short phone call to Chrysler headquarters. But liars like to lie, and Romney is a habitual liar.

Obama does some truth-telling in this ad. Take it to heart, voters in Ohio and other auto-manufacturing states.

 

Voiceover:
"When the auto industry faced collapse, Mitt Romney turned his back. Even the conservative Detroit News criticized Romney for his 'wrong-headedness' on the bailout. And now, after Romney's false claim of Jeep outsourcing to China, Chrysler ITSELF has refuted Romney's lie. The truth? Jeep is ADDING jobs in Ohio."

Voiceover:
"Mitt Romney on Ohio jobs? Wrong Then. "

Mitt Romney: 
"Let Detroit go bankrupt."

Voiceover:
"Dishonest Now."

[Update: Chrysler CEO pushes back on Romney. PolitiFact gives Romney's lie a Pants on Fire rating.]

Photos of 2012 Willamette Humane Society Boo Bash

This was the first year we played adult "dress up" and went to the Halloween-themed Boo Bash fundraiser put on every year here in Salem by the Willamette Humane Society. Last year Laurel and I volunteered to do clean-up duties after the event.

I saw enough people hanging around in clever/cute costumes to make me want to attend as a real Boo Bash'er this year. Laurel found me a Witch Doctor costume which meshed nicely with a mask I got at the Oregon Country Fair.

I was mildly disturbed by how much I enjoyed channeling my inner Witch Doctor. I heard a few people mutter "scary" when I walked by. Sweet!

Laurel, animal lover that she is, embraced her inner raccoon. Her tail (not shown) stayed on perfectly. I thought she looked super-cute, but Laurel didn't like the itchiness of her costume's fake fur. Maybe she'll be the Witch Doctor next year.

If so, I know who I won't be at the 2013 Boo Bash: Jesus. This guy was so convincing, it'd be tough to follow his act. (Of course, who knows what Jesus really looked like?) During dinner he traded in what seems to be a mixed drink for a glass of red wine. Much more appropriate.

We came across a tall devil'ish woman who reminded us of Betsy, my optometrist. Couldn't have been, of course, given Betsy's dignified professional demeanor whenever I get an eye exam. After whoever this person was asked me, "Who am I?," I'm proud to say that my 64-year old brain took only a few seconds to reply "Devil with a blue dress on." And even prouder, after a few seconds more, to add "Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels." Showing my age. Have a look and listen, clueless younger people. Great song.

I loved the "Reno 911" gang. For a while this was one of our favorite TV shows. Terrific cynical off-color humor. These Boo Bashers played their roles well.

The Reno 911 woman had a more attractive backside than the guys, for sure. Both physically and philosophically. I started to recall some existentialist "guilty" theme from my college reading days, but the two large complimentary glasses of Pinot Noir I'd consumed made me feel "Can't remember; who gives a shit?"

This woman, who seemed to be part of the Reno 911 crew, dragged a stuffed pony around all night. First time I saw her, I wondered why. After the second glass of wine, it made wonderful (non) sense.

There were several Snow White's at the Boo Bash. I'm sure this version won't mind me giving him the Least Attractive But Most Gutsy award.

Waiting for our terrific vegetarian dinner to be served, I entertained myself by taking photos of myself, then marveling at how much I enjoyed my Witch Doctor self. Please, please, let reincarnation be real!

Photos of Suttle Lake fall colors, 2012 version

lt's a tradition.

Every October, around the middle of the month, Laurel and I walk around central Oregon's Suttle Lake. We love the color of the vine maples, even if we don't always love the weather -- which can range from sunny and warm to rainy and cold.

This year it was cloudy and cool, moderate.

Each year the colors are different.

Guess it has to do with changing temperature, rainfall, and such at Suttle Lake. Or maybe the vine maples just get in unpredictable moods. This month the theme was more orange'y and lemon-green than vibrant red. Still beautiful.

This was Zu Zu's first visit to Suttle Lake. She's also known as Dog #2, to distinguish her from Dog #1, Serena, who, at twelve and a half, didn't make the walk. It would have taken us forever, or close to it, given Serena's stately senior-canine-citizen meandering speed.

The contrast between evergreens and temporarygreens is striking.

I enjoy this Zen'ish spot every time I walk by it. A fallen log divides calm and frothy water. My psyche feels this way most of the time. I'm continually moving between one pool or the other.

Laurel likes to walk faster than I do. Plus, I enjoy pauses that refresh... the spirit. No matter what happens in the human world of politics and such, nature keeps on doing its thing. Beautifully.

The colors got more vivid as we reached the lodge side of the lake. This is where Lake Creek starts to make its way to the Metolius. (As is the first photo above.)

I always think "On Golden Pond" when we come to this lodge cabin. Heck, this time of year there's indeed some gold around the lake.

Obama has recovered half of his lost lead

Three weeks ago, October 4 to be exact, I was feeling pretty damn good about the presidential election. Eighty-seven percent good, to be exact.

Back then this was the chance Nate Silver of highly respected Five Thirty Eight was giving an Obama win.

Wow!, I thought; 87% is close to 90%, which is so close to 100% I figured Romney should just concede now, rather than waiting for the inevitable.

Unfortunately for progressives like me, Romney showed up at the first debate and Obama didn't. At least, not as the Obama we saw in the second and third debates. 

So by October 12, a mere eight days later, Five Thirty Eight had dropped Obama's chance of winning all the way down to 61%. Polls weren't being nice to him, after he'd been overly nice to Romney at the first debate.

But all the talk about "Mittmentum" was premature, just as the earlier presumption that Obama had the election in the bag was. For the past two weeks Romney has been steadily sliding on Five Thirty Eight while Obama has been ascending.

Today Obama's chance of winning is estimated to be 74%. That's 13 points below his fall high, and 13 points above his fall low. He's halfway back from the darkest "Mittmentum" day. 

Politics is unpredictable. There will be more ups and downs between now and November 6.

Regardless, the mood must be much brighter in the Obama campaign than in the Romney campaign. It's also a lot brighter inside my own head compared to how I felt a couple of weeks ago.

Why I ended up buying a 13 inch retina MacBook Pro

I plunked down $2,300 and change for a 13 inch retina MacBook Pro yesterday (256 GB flash storage, plus Apple Care and a USB Superdrive).

I must have been one of the first to order the computer on Apple's web site, since I kept refreshing the closed-down store page until it popped up all functional, with the new goodies -- iPad Mini, new iMac, and my lusted-for laptop -- ready for purchase.

Surprising. Because if I believed myself, I never would have thought that I'd end up doing what I just did. Consider...

Last June I anguished about whether to buy a 15 inch retina MacBook Pro or a 13 inch MacBook Air.
A few days later I'd come up with reasons to choose a basic MacBook Pro over the new retina model.
After a few days more I was talking myself into why I should buy a 15 inch retina MacBook Pro. 
In August I explained why I wasn't going to wait for a 13 inch retina MacBook Pro. 

Yet here I am in late October, eagerly waiting for Apple to ship me a replacement for my dearly beloved, yet now dated, three year old 13 inch MacBook Pro. Obviously I changed my mind -- after changing my mind several other times after the 15 inch retina MacBook Pro made its debut in June.

I played around with the 15 inch'er several times at an Apple Store in suburban Portland's Bridgeport Village. I liked it, but I couldn't fall in love with it. At the risk of sounding sexist, it was like dating a woman twenty pounds overweight after enjoying the company of someone pleasingly svelte. 

Everytime I touched the bigger retina laptop, she (oops) it seemed just too damn large.

The extra real estate to the left and right of the keyboard struck me as excessive. And no matter how I tried to convince myself that I needed a larger screen, I recalled how the 13 inch display I'd used for three years suited me just fine. 

So whenever I was tempted to call an Apple Store employee over and say "I want to buy a 15 inch retina MacBook Pro," the words wouldn't leave my mouth no matter how loudly they echoed in my brain. I'd go home, then daily look for Internet gossip about a 13 inch retina MacBook Pro.

Gossip which became more believable in October. Supposed sightings of the smaller retina laptop were reported. I decided to wait until the iPad Mini release party on October 23, this being the most likely date for a 13 inch retina MacBook Pro announcement.

I'm glad I ended up ordering a 13 inch retina model. That size just seems, well, fitting to me.

My current 13 inch MacBook Pro fits nicely in my backpack. The retina replacement will be a pound lighter and 27% smaller in cubic inches (109 vs. 80 cubic inches). That'll give me room to store the superdrive and an ethernet adapter the occasional times I need those devices -- which are built into my current MacBook, but were left out of the new retina MacBook Pros. 

Reviews of the recently released 13 inch'er are scant. A round-up of initial impressions can be read here. But I didn't feel like I needed to wait for detailed reviews to order a 13 inch retina MacBook Pro. It felt right to do this. After it arrives, I'll have a couple of weeks to change my mind.

From what I've read, the geeks who've left comments about the 13 inch little sister of the well-received 15 inch retina laptop generally aren't wild about it. Many seem to be gamers, or 3-D afficionados, who don't like the graphics capability in the smaller machine. Plus, they think it's overpriced.

To which I reply, that's no big deal to me.

Since I prefer a 13 inch laptop to a 15 inch laptop, I don't mind Apple pricing the 13 inch retina MacBook Pro a bit higher, proportionately, than the 15 inch machine -- when compared with the non-retina models. And I doubt that I'll ever need more processing power than what the model I just bought offers. 

I loved the look of the retina display when I tried out the 15 inch model at an Apple Store. I'd bring along my basic 13 inch MacBook Pro, set it beside the retina display, then think "ugh!" when I looked at my computer. 

The display always had seemed pleasingly sharp and clear. But I didn't know what I was missing until I saw the retina screen. Being a blogger and an author, I spend a lot of time staring at words on-screen. Letters look fine on my current computer; they look way better on a retina display.

My 64 year old eyes will appreciate that.

Spending about $300 for a retina display and some other benefits over a 13 inch MacBook Air with a 256 GB flash drive is well worth it to me. If I keep my new laptop for three years, that's $100 a year, 27 cents a day, for the pleasure of looking at much better looking text and images.

I put a quarter in the tip jar at Starbucks whenever I get a grande Pike Place. So I feel fine paying that much daily to myself for a beautifully designed new 13 inch Apple laptop with a beautiful retina display.

Apple makes great products. My three year old MacBook Pro has performed almost flawlessly. A few days ago I closed the cover to put it to sleep, which dislodged it from the support of a slanted laptop stand that I keep it on for a better typing position.

My frantic late-night attempt to catch the sliding computer failed. Crash! It dropped in a free fall from a four foot high kitchen counter onto a hard tile floor. My wife yelled, "Is your computer OK?" "I bet it is," I assured her.

I was right. Apple knows how to make computers that work reliably. Even after being dropped. I'm looking forward to my 13 inch retina MacBook Pro being as enjoyable to use as my old laptop.

Update: here's a review that calls the 13 inch retina MacBook Pro Apple's best laptop. Naturally, I agree.

As it stands with Apple’s current laptop line-up, the 13-inch MacBook Pro comes out smelling like roses. It doesn’t have the raw horsepower of the 15-inch Pro, and it doesn’t have the extreme thinness of either Air, but it does have the overall best value. With its respectable internals, mid-range weight, and brilliant screen, the 13-inch Pro is simply the best laptop Apple sells now. A week ago, that wasn’t the case. The previous version of the 13-inch was good, but the new version is fantastic. Unless you have very niche and specific needs, this is the laptop you want to have.

Obama whips Romney in last debate: election tomorrow, please!

I'm feeling good about the presidential election. Let's have it tomorrow, not in two weeks. Obama whipped Romney's ass tonight, just like he did in the second debate. 

Don't believe me. Believe the snap polls. 

CBS: Obama won - 53%  Romney won - 23%
PPP: Obama won - 53%  Romney won - 42%
CNN: Obama won - 48%  Romney won - 40%

The CBS poll was of undecided voters, so that's great news for Obama. Wow, he beat Romney by more than two to one among those who may tilt the election one way or the other.

Not surprising.

Romney looked lip-smackingly nervous, tentative, cautious, and over-eager to appear more moderate than he really is. Never loath to pander, Romney willingness to flip-flop was on full display tonight.

For example, at the second debate he criticized Obama for setting a firm deadline for an American withdrawal for Afghanistan, the end of 2014. Romney said he supported that goal, but as president would evaluate the policy as conditions demanded.

Tonight, though, he mind-melded with Obama. December 31, 2014 became a hard and fast withdrawal date. I enjoyed the vision of neo-con heads exploding as they watched Romney cave on his previous positions.

Because on virtually every foreign policy issue, Romney agreed with Obama. Romney doesn't want to go to war with Iran except as a very last resort. He doesn't want American troops in Syria. Over and over, we heard "I agree with the president."

The few strong criticisms of Obama were based on lies. Obama's "apology tour" around the Middle East is a Pants on Fire lie. The lie that our military superiority is at risk because of a weakened Navy and Air Force also earned a Pants on Fire from PolitiFact.

My favorite part of the debate was when Obama called Romney out on his disgraceful lack of understanding how military power works. The prospect of Romney being commander-in-chief is scary. He's clueless about military matters.

I loved this exchange.

At one point, when Mr. Romney complained that the Navy “is smaller now than any time since 1917,” Mr. Obama pounced and noted that the comparison works only if aircraft carriers are equated with gunboats. “We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed,” the president said.

Slowing his words, he added sarcastically: “We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we are counting ships.”

Still, it's going to be a nail-biter of an election.

Tonight I just feel a lot less worried that I'm going to lose all of my nails on November 6. At the moment Five Thirty Eight has Obama with a 70.1% chance of winning re-election. That could rise to 75% or 80% with a 1/2 or full percentage point boost in national polling for Obama. 

We'll see how polling goes this week. It seems very unlikely that tonight's debate is going to hurt Obama. He looked a heck of a lot more presidential and commander-in-chief'ish than Romney.

What foreign leader would ever trust Romney, given his innumerable "etch a sketch" flip-flops? The guy is willing to say anything, at any time, principles be damned. That's a dangerous quality in a president.

Obama administration was correct about Benghazi attack

Yeah, it's a fantasy, but I can dream about Romney apologizing to Obama at Monday night's debate.

"I'm sorry, Mr. President, for asserting that you and your administration misled the American people about what happened in Benghazi right after the attack on our consulate. Now information has come out that supports the initial analysis of the situation."

This assumes that Romney reads the Los Angeles Times, and saw its recent "No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack" story. 

Excerpts:

The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya.

...The attack was "carried out following a minimum amount of planning," said a U.S. intelligence official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a matter still under investigation. "The attackers exhibited a high degree of disorganization. Some joined the attack in progress, some did not have weapons and others just seemed interested in looting."

A second U.S. official added, "There isn't any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance." Most of the evidence so far suggests that "the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" earlier that day, the official said.

...The description by witnesses also differs from some of the administration's recent statements. Officials, most notably Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, at first said they believed the attack was motivated by a controversial anti-Islamic video produced in the United States. More recently, officials downplayed any connection. But in Benghazi, witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.

Tarek, an off-duty police sergeant who asked that his full name be withheld to shield him from reprisals, said he came to the scene about an hour after the attack began and found militants blocking the road leading to the compound.

"They drew their guns on me and they told me that the Americans were abusing our prophet," he said. "That's why they said they had come to fight."

...Rice has been widely criticized for comments she made on a round of talk show appearances Sept. 16, when she said the attack appeared to have stemmed from a protest over the video, similar to the violent demonstration at the embassy in Cairo. Rice was echoing a set of CIA talking points that have since been made public.

American officials now say there was no protest in Benghazi, only the attack, which began at 9:40 p.m. and continued at a second facility into the next morning.

...Now, however, said another official with access to the intelligence, "it may turn out that the initial assessment was not that far off."

Beautiful downhill longboarding video: "Let go"

Let go. Wonderful advice. For living. For dying. And...

For getting on a longboard at the top of a long, winding road down a picturesque hill. What the hell is there else to do, but let go?

This guy is highly skilled. Yet what struck me the most about his ride was the simple flow of it. He makes letting go look easy. 

I was moved by "Let go." Struck me as a metaphor for life, yet also exactly what it concretely was. Have a look. (Thanks to bayrider for sharing the video link in a comment on this longboarding post of mine.)

 

Obama warns about "Romnesia" in great video

Love it. Love it! Love it!!

Congrats to the Obama speechwriter(s) who came up with the inspired notion of "Romnesia." That's a perfect one word description of what Mitt Romney suffers from.

And which we voters can't allow to have spread to the rest of America.

Best line is when Obama tells Romney, no need to worry about your illness, you've got Obamacare, and it covers pre-existing conditions!

The video is well worth 4:43 of your time. I smiled my way through it. 

 

Thanks to Daily Kos for a Romnesia blog post.
---------------------------------
"We've got to name this condition that he's going through," Obama said, referring to Mitt Romney's attempt to undergo a last-minute transformation from a severe conservative to a severe moderate. "I think it's called Romnesia. That's what it's called. I think that's what he's going through."

"Now," he continued, "I'm not a medical doctor, but i do want to go over the symptoms with you—because i want to make sure nobody else catches it."

And what might those symptoms be? Here's one example: "You know if you say if you're for equal pay, but you can't say if you'll sign a bill for equal pay, you might have Romnesia." And: "If you say you think women should have access to contraceptive care, but you support legislation that would let employers deny contraceptive care, you  might have Romnesia." And another: "If you say you you'll protect a woman's right to choose, but you stand up in a primary debate and say you'd be delighted to ban abortion in all cases, then you definitely have Romnesia."

But you don't need to worry, said the President. "If you have Romnesia, here's the good news—Obamacare covers preexisting conditions. We can fix you! We can make you well."

KGW news gets second-debate win for Obama wrong

Usually I watch the recorded first third of KGW's Portland 11 pm news in a semi-comatose state, aware of what's on the TV only enough to keep fast-forwarding through the seemingly endless string of car crashes, dog bites, and other "if it bleeds, it leads" stories that bore my wife and I.

But last night -- gasp! -- KGW actually mentioned some national political news early on.

Unfortunately, they got it wrong. Though I can't remember anchor Laural Porter's exact words, the gist of what she said was, "Polls split on who won the second presidential debate, Obama or Romney."

Wow, that woke me fast. Split? 

Political junkie that I am, I'd been following the "snap polls" closely, since I wanted to see if other people considered that Obama did as good a job as I thought he did. I didn't remember hearing about a single poll that gave Romney a win.

So this morning I headed to the KGW web site, found the "contact us" page, and composed a message under the "TV News Corrections" category.k

Last night on the 11 pm news I heard Laural Porter (I believe it was) say that post-second-debate polls showed a split between an Obama and a Romney win. Huh? Every poll I'm aware of favored Obama, with more people saying that Obama won the debate. Nate Silver of the highly respected Five Thirty Eight blog had an "Instant Reaction" post where he listed a bunch of post-debate polls. Every one showed an Obama win. See:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/instant-reaction-polls-show-narrow-obama-advantage-in-second-debate/

Your reporting sounded wrong to me. Please show me the "split" poll assessments of who won. In fact, please show me even one respectable poll that showed a Romney win (I'm not counting a Fox News internet poll of viewers, or something like that).

KGW needs to issue a correction unless you can back up your assertion. News organizations should report the facts. Even if you can find one poll that showed a Romney win, the clear majority of polls definitely show that Obama won the second debate.

No response so far from KGW.

Maybe they're waiting for the 11 o'clock news to make a big deal out of their mea culpa, and will publicly thank an alert viewer who fact-checked their erroneous reporting. But if so, why haven't they asked for a photo of me to accompany their lavish praise?

Seriously, though...

Being an avid watcher of HBO's "Newsroom," I'm aware that interns and other lowly staffers are available to do basic news grunt work. A minute or two spent Googling "who won second presidential debate polls" would have led to a different script for Laural Porter.

Unless KGW gets its national political facts from Fox News. Which is just about the only explanation I can think of for KGW's mistaken analysis of who pollsters say won last Tuesday's debate.

Dear Barack, all is forgiven...

President Obama and I have made up. Evidence is shown in our VISA balance, which became $100 larger a few minutes ago.

I'd vowed "no more Obama for America" donations -- especially after the first presidential debate, when, after a brief honeymoon period during which I thought Obama did fine, the horror of his listless performance hit home.

After watching tonight's debate, though, I'm a happy progressive again.

Win or lose (and I'm betting "win"), Obama has gotten back to being a tough fighter. That's all I wanted: to see him go toe to toe with Romney rather than cower in his corner.

Wish fulfilled. And exceeded.

That last exchange of responses to a final audience question was almost a knockout blow to Romney's chin. Not a brilliant idea, Mitt, to use the words "one hundred percent" in your response. That made for a perfect last-word Obama summation, where he blasted Romney for writing off 47% of the citizenry in that infamous closed door speech.

Getting caught on the "Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack for two weeks" lie also was delightful.

Thank you, Ms. Moderator, for doing an instant fact-check supporting Obama's assertion that, the day after the Libya consulate attack, he'd denounced the terrorist attack. I only wish you'd pressed harder on Romney's bizarre refusal to provide any details on how he'd pay for his five trillion dollar tax cut.

Hopefully "just trust me" won't cut it with voters. As Obama so shrewdly noted, no large business deal would go through with such a vague description of all-important details.

Bottom line: Obama's back.

I can hardly wait for the next debate, which will focus on foreign policy. There's likely still a lot of ups and downs for each candidate before the election. But I'm back to feeling pretty darn good about Obama's chances.

Surprise! "The Happy Movie" made me happy.

Thank you, Salem Progressive Film Series, for showing "The Happy Movie" last Thursday.

I enjoy going to your showings at the Grand Theatre, but usually they're a bit of a downer. After all, economic inequality, pollution, environmental degradation, and other socially significant subjects aren't exactly smile-inducers.

But happiness is. I hugely enjoyed learning about what contributes to happiness from experts in psychology, and also seeing happy people in action. 

Here's some themes from the movie that I remember. 

Flow. Yeah, flowing with life is the way to go. There was quite a bit of talk about flow, losing yourself in an activity to such an extent there's minimal difference between you and what you're doing. In other words, your focus is on the here and now, not the there and then.

I recall that during a narration of what flow means, the screen briefly showed a skateboarder sliding down a handrail. Being a geezer skateboarder/longboarder myself, my inner dude said right on. 

Along this line, I'll take this opportunity to premiere my own cinematic creation, the considerably less entertaining You Tube video that I filmed, directed, and starred in on the very afternoon before I watched The Happy Movie: "Big Stick longboarding, senior citizen style."

Description:

Risking my iPhone, I Kahuna Big Stick my way down a trail one-handed, videoing my marvelous 64 year old longboarding technique. Note the (accidental) cinematic effect at the end, where my dark glasses reflect my longboard rolling back down the slope toward me. Oscar for short subject, please!

 

This is an example of flow. I really enjoy longboarding because when I do it (up to four miles now), I'm really just doing it. Since I've only been into longboarding for about three months, my skills, and lack thereof, require me to focus pretty intensely on what's coming up on the trail. 

A rock, twig, broken pavement, sudden steep spot -- those sorts of things are a bigger deal to beginner me than they would be to a young dude or dudette who grew up with a skateboard as almost a bodily appendage. So I can't let my mind wander, enhancing a sense of flow.

Pleasingly, "The Happy Movie" showed examples of people who are still flowing with activities that they're experts in. Like a Brazilian surfer of indeterminate age (fifties?) who spoke movingly of what it means to him to become part of a wave on his board.

Compassion and service. Most of us wouldn't consider caring for the dying in a Calcutta center run by the Mother Teresa organization to be happiness-inducing. But the movie showed a man who had happily been there for over a decade, giving food and drink to the terminally ill, cleaning their sores, replacing their bandages. 

He was a Catholic, yet didn't emphasize the religious side of his service. He felt good helping others. I had the feeling that he'd be doing the same thing even if there wasn't a theological justification for his compassion.

This is borne out by studies which show that everywhere around the world, among believers and nonbelievers alike, people enjoy helping other people. Along with helping animals and the environment. Meditation was discussed in the movie, the sort of compassion-centered "may all be happy" meditative exercises favored by Buddhism.

Wishing other people good, even your enemies, makes you happy. I need to remember this the next time (which will be soon, believe me) I read or hear someone making a political assertion contrary to mine that deeply irritates me. 

I guess a place to start would be a minimalist compassion meditation like, "May those fucking idiots who haven't a clue be happy... and also wake up to the correct political point of view, which just happens to be mine, as soon as possible."

Hey, got to start somewhere.

Being social. I was surprised to hear in the movie that Japan is the least happy industrialized country in the world. The scenes of Japanese life, which admittedly were chosen to make that point, certainly reflected that. Japanese people seemingly are still heavy on the "workaholic" side of the scale, with too many leading emotionally isolated lives.

By contrast, a divorced woman in Denmark (I believe it was) is shown living happily with her child in a shared housing setup -- where families have individual living spaces, but share cooking, child care, and other duties.

She spoke about how great it was to only have to cook dinner for everybody once or twice a month, rather than prepare an evening meal for her own family every day. Plus, the social support she got from like-minded housing companions meant a lot to her.

Okinawa was presented as an interesting counter to nearby Japan. On that island people still live close to the earth, gardening for the pleasure of it, as well for the need of it. Relating to nature isn't the same as relating to humans. However, happiness is enhanced by feeling close to the natural world, just as being with other people makes us happy.

(Usually. I've been at some social gatherings that made me yearn for an isolation cell in a penitentiary.)

The Okinawans appear to have a marvelously age-integrated culture. Instead of the young doing their thing, and the elderly theirs, different generations rarely meeting, "The Happy Movie" showed Okinawa children and elders dancing and playing together. 

If you ever have a chance to see the film, do it. Likely it'll make you happy. I agreed with almost everything I saw in the movie. Except perhaps, the oft-heard admonition that once people attain a decent standard of living, getting more material stuff doesn't make them happier.

Huh?

Getting the iPhone 5 after being stuck with an iPhone 4 for ages (OK, two and a half years, but it felt like eternity) has made me really happy. Being able to upgrade my aging 13 inch MacBook Pro laptop to a retina display model would make me even happier.

Are you listening, Apple? How about contributing to an increase in the world's happiness level by releasing a 13 inch Retina MacBook Pro at the same time as the rumored iPad Mini this month?

Obama, I'm trying to be positive about you, but...

This blog post almost was going to be about Joe Biden's strong debate performance last night, where he smiled, smirked, and that's malarky'd in a "give 'em hell" manner that raised my progressive spirits. 

I was all set to discuss some analyses of Paul Ryan's dissembling, a.k.a. lying, the most obvious of which was his resolute reluctance to provide any details at all about the Romney-Ryan plan to cut tax rates 20% across the board without increasing the deficit or the middle class tax burden.

This magic is supposed to happen by limiting certain deductions and other tax expenditures. Bizarrely, Ryan steadfastly refused to cite even one example of how trillions in tax cuts and increased defense spending will begin to be paid for.

But that quasi-wonky subject faded from my mind after I read Nate Silver's most recent Five Thirty Eight post: "Romney Debate Gains Show Staying Power." It's depressing. To a progressive like me. Conservatives must be dancing with joy, or whatever they do when they're happy.

(Say the Pledge of Allegiance and read the Bible?)

I've been doing my best to sublimate how deeply angry I am at Obama for his lackluster debate performance. I've been hoping that Romney's bounce in the polls would fade after a week or so. Isn't happening. 

So I embraced my inner grouch. I decided to finally read Andrew Sullivan's post-debate column, which I'd heard was brutally honest about how disappointed Sullivan was. The title fits with my mood: "Did Obama Just Throw the Entire Election Away?"

Seems entirely possible. Since misery likes company, I felt better after reading words that matched how I've come to look upon the debate after a brief period of excessive optimism. Sullivan said:

Look: I'm trying to rally some morale, but I've never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week - throw away almost every single advantage he had with voters and manage to enable his opponent to seem as if he cares about the middle class as much as Obama does.

How do you erase that imprinted first image from public consciousness: a president incapable of making a single argument or even a halfway decent closing statement? And after Romney's convincing Etch-A-Sketch, convincing because Obama was incapable of exposing it, Romney is now the centrist candidate, even as he is running to head up the most radical party in the modern era.

We've all heard the sports cliche. "Got to leave everything on the field." As a fan, I've never been disappointed in a team that did just that, even if they lost horribly. Effort is what counts. A team that fights to the end, though overmatched at every position, deserves a lot of respect.

But a president who stands on a debate stage for 90 minutes and lets his opponent get away with lie after lie, falsehood after falsehood, changed position after changed position, even saying "sorry" at one point when Romney chastized him for bringing up too many rebuttal points on some issue -- that's pathetic. 

At the moment there is only one comment on today's depressing Five Thirty Eight post. It's got a spelling error. Aside from that, I could have written it myself.

I guess we're going to have a new narrative for the ages....how to loose an election in 90 minutes. Once again the Democrats fumble on the one yard line.

Geez, I hope not. Things are just really tight now. All-important swing state electoral votes can go one way or the other with just a swing of a few percentage points. If Obama doesn't hit it out of the park next Tuesday, we could end up with a President Romney.

And that would be really depressing. I second the sentiments Andrew Sullivan shared in his final paragraph.

I'm trying to see a silver lining. But when a president self-immolates on live TV, and his opponent shines with lies and smiles, and a record number of people watch, it's hard to see how a president and his party recover. I'm not giving up. If the lies and propaganda of the last four years work even after Obama had managed to fight back solidly against them to get a clear and solid lead in critical states, then reality-based government is over in this country again. We're back to Bush-Cheney, but more extreme. We have to find a way to avoid that. Much, much more than Obama's vanity is at stake.

Laughing at Obama's debate performance is better than crying

Thanks to a fellow Tai Chi student who didn't take Obama's groan-inducing performance (if you're a progressive) at the first 2012 presidential debate as seriously as I did, today I learned about a Taiwanese animation that takes a humorous view of the Romney-Obama bout.

Have a look. And a read of the subtitles, unless your Chinese is a lot better than mine.

 

It was healing to smile my way out of the pain I've been feeling as, day by day, Obama's re-election chances take another downward tilt on Five Thirty Eight. He's down to 68%, a big drop from the 87% of a week ago.

In a blog post right after the debate, I prognosticated that Obama would be at 80% or higher today. Obviously my political intuition sucked just as much as Obama's debate performance. 

The best why? analysis I've read about Obama's lackluster demeanor is by Maureen Dowd, a woman with perceptive psychological skills. Her "Barry trails off..." contains both some encouraging and discouraging insights for progressives like me.

It was a perfect psychological storm for the president. He performs better when his back is against the wall; he has some subconscious need to put himself in challenging positions. That makes it hard for him to surf success and intensity; he just suddenly runs out of gas and stops fighting, leaving revved up supporters confused and deflated. “That’s just his rhythm,” said one adviser.

OK, now Obama's back is decidedly against the wall. Hopefully this means that he'll come out swinging at next Tuesday's debate with Romney. 

But then there's this:

At a fund-raising concert in San Francisco Monday night, the president mocked Romney’s star turn, saying “what was being presented wasn’t leadership; that’s salesmanship.”

It is that distaste for salesmanship that caused Obama not to sell or even explain health care and economic policies; and it is that distaste that caused him not to sell himself and his policies at the debate. His latest fund-raising plea is marked “URGENT.” But in refusing to muster his will and energy, and urgently sell his vision, he underscores his own lapses in leadership and undermines arguments for four more years.

Exactly.

Like I said a few days ago, I don't appreciate getting panicked emails from Democratic fundraisers that put the pressure on donors like me to stem the rising Romney tide. The Obama campaign has enought money to win the election.

What they need is a candidate who will step up at the next two debates and fight to win.

Romney erases Obama's convention bounce. I need a mood elevator.

Oh, great. Not! Just what I didn't want to read at the end of an otherwise splendid sunny warm rainless Oregon day. Nate Silver's overview of where the presidential race stands.

Following another day of strong polling on Tuesday, Mitt Romney advanced into the best position in the FiveThirtyEight forecast since the party conventions. 

...The forecast model is not quite ready to jump on board with the notion that the race has become a literal toss-up; Mr. Romney will need to maintain his bounce for a few more days, or extend it into high-quality polls of swing states, before we can be surer about that.

But we are ready to conclude that one night in Denver undid most of the advantage Mr. Obama had appeared to gain in September.

Ninety freakin' minutes. Of free TV time with 60 million people watching. How Obama could blow his opportunity so badly is mystifying. 

Yeah, my personal reaction was that Obama did OK. Unfortunately, most voters disagreed. Biden, you'd better nail Ryan to the political wall on Thursday night.

If you don't, I may need an anti-depressant up through election day. And if Romney somehow wins, for the following four years.

Post-debate Democratic fundraising emails are irritating

On the slight chance that this blog rant will be read by a social media Democratic campaign fundraiser, here's some tips for you from a progressive who is getting irritated at your current tactics.

My wife and I already have given quite a bit of money to Obama for America, the Congressional Democratic campaign committees, and some individual candidates like Elizabeth Warren. Plus, we've donated in support of Oregon Dems.

We're more inclined to give when we feel that campaigns are doing the best they can, with energy and enthusiasm, to defeat Republican efforts to return us to the not-good-old George Bush days. You know, the whole cut taxes, slash social programs, increase defense spending, hope for the 1% to create jobs thing.

Avid poll watcher and political junkie that I am, I was feeling pretty damn good about Democrats until... you know when. Last Wednesday. The first Obama-Romney debate. I thought Obama did pretty well, but clearly most of the rest of the country didn't.

So now Obama's national lead has disappeared, or at least is much diminished. There's no way to deny it. Most people who watched the debate thought Obama sucked. I agree, stylistically. Substantively, he scored some points, but emotionally and body-language-wise Obama looked weak and uncertain.

Acknowledging this evident fact would make Democratic fundraising emails more honest and appealing to me. Instead, my inbox is filled with crap like this.

We could hardly sleep last night. Have you seen this poll?

GALLUP:
Obama - 47
Romney - 47

We've got one month left until the election, and it's clearer than ever: we will win or lose based on turnout and how well we can respond to the Republican attacks on the air.

Wow. Democrats are going to win or lose based on turnout? Sure, that's partly true, but if the polls keep cratering for Obama, a majority of those turning out are going to be voting for Romney. Here's a suggested rewrite of your first sentence:

We could hardly sleep last night. We've been worrying about the effect of Obama's poor debate performance on the polls. Then we saw this one.

Dem fundraisers also should be reassuring me that Obama realizes how poorly he did in the view of most debate watchers, and that he'll come out swinging and fighting in the next debates rather than cower in his corner. Biden needs to do this also, of course.

This emailed appeal was irritating for the same reason.

Brian — BREAKING: Today’s political report tells us that we’re on track to lose the Senate majority by one single seat. Take a look at the latest polling numbers:

***Polling Update***
Virginia:	Kaine (D)-44	Allen (R)-44
Nevada:	Berkley (D)-45	Heller (R)-45
Connecticut:	Murphy (D)-47	McMahon (R)-48

Mitt’s polling surge could boost Republican candidates across the country, and they could take an insurmountable lead in the next 48 hours.

If you care about President Obama’s agenda—fighting for the right to choose, marriage equality, and access to health care—you can’t let Republicans take over the Senate and repeal everything we’ve accomplished.
 
There is absolutely no time left. We must fight back immediately--today.

Hey, my wife and I have been donating money to fight for Democrats all year. We weren't standing on the stage next to Mitt Romney, failing to respond passionately and vigorously to his ridiculous, fact-free blathering. 

Obama had the chance to get the Democratic message across to a national audience of about 60 million people. Cost-free! Courtesy of the networks and cable channels. He blew his opportunity. So now you guys want more money to repair the political damage caused by his screw-up.

I did send $20 off to the Obama campaign after the debate, just to show them that I'm still supporting them. But I'll feel a heck of a lot better if Biden does great in his Thursday debate, and if Obama bounces back strongly a week from tomorrow in his second bout with Romney.

 

When I'm 64... longboard-inspired thoughts on living life crazily

I don't need an excuse to get all philosophical. It comes naturally to me.

But armed with a strong cup of coffee, a warm dry Oregon early evening, and a memory of a pleasant afternoon spent longboarding at Salem's wonderful Minto Brown Island Park, I feel especially inspired to muse about what life means to me on my 64th-birthday eve. 

The Beatles released "When I'm 64" in 1967. I was a college freshman. Loved the song. Hated the idea of being 64. The lyrics seemed depressingly fantastical back in those youthful days. 

When I get older losing my hair,
Many years from now...

Bummer of a thought to start off a Flower Child era song. But I didn't take it seriously. Hell, I'd never be 64. I was just 19 at the time. No way I'd ever become the old geezer the Beatles sang about. 

And yet... here I am. Almost 64. Losing my hair to a bald spot. Also, to thinning. 

But here's the difference between the 64 year old me I feared I'd be, and the 64 year old me I am. Just before I snapped that photo, I'd propped my Camera+ self-timer equipped iPhone 5 against my backpack and gotten a larger perspective on what I was doing.

I was about 2 1/2 miles into another ride on my newly acquired Kahuna Creations Haka Moko longboard, which melds so nicely with the Kahuna Big Stick (basically it makes longboarding into stand up paddling, on asphalt rather than water). 

And yes, I wear a helmet. I just took it off for my picture taking. After all, I'm not crazy.

Or am I? Of course I am!

I asked that question three months ago in my first skateboard post, "At 63, I'm seriously considering skateboarding. Am I crazy?" The responses I got from most other people were along the lines of "absolutely."

Which didn't deter me at all, obviously. I like craziness.

Not the pathological psychiatric variety; there's nothing funny or fun about psychosis. What I like is the delicious feeling of doing something that doesn't make sense to other people, that seems like an outrageously bad idea to them, yet strikes me as a marvelously proper thing to embrace.

What I really was afraid of back in 1967, as now, wasn't becoming old. It was becoming sane. The sort of sanity where you act your age, do what's expected of you, don't take unnecessary risks, pursue activities that don't raise eyebrows or attract wide-eyed attention.

Understand: I don't longboard because I want to look like an insane geezerish skateboarding senior citizen rebel who is having an end-of-life crisis that won't quit. Well, that's part of the reason, because I like that image; but there's much more to my longboarding madness.

I just knew. That. It was what. I should do.

Short and simple. Four ungrammattical declarative sentences. 

In 1989 I asked my wife to marry me after knowing her only a few months, and having been divorced just a little while before I met Laurel. Crazy! And yet...

We celebrated our 22nd anniversary this year. I just knew. That. It was what. I should do.

Three years ago I jumped into another crazy wheeled activity.

I bought a big Suzuki Burgman 650 scooter. Just as with longboarding, the prevailing consensus was that this was an ill-advised idea. After all, everybody knows how dangerous motorcycles are, and a Burgman 650 is a thinly-disguised motorcycle (albeit one that shifts on its own and has antilock brakes).

I sold the scooter this year. Never got as much as a scratch. Never had any sort of accident. Had a lot of fun with it. Never regretted the crazy decision to get it. Because...

I just knew. That. It was what. I should do.

Craziness, non-pathological variety, is in the eye of the beholder. And the judge of this should be us. There's no such thing as objective crazy. What seems awesomely outrageously inappropriate to one person will be the bestest most wonderful splendiferous thing to do to someone else.

I really didn't know what to expect when I decided to jump into longboarding. It just called to me.

I can conjure up reasons for why I bought a longboard, but those wouldn't be the truth. I don't know why I did it. I have no idea how my brain came up with the thoughts and feelings and intuitions and oh yeah's! which led to a Kahuna Big Stick and Hako Moko longboard becoming a permanent traveling companion in my Mini Cooper, along with my bag of shoes, helmet, and other protective gear.

Often when I open up the luggage compartment and look at that stuff, I think about Magritte's "This is not a pipe." Likewise, my longboard isn't a longboard. Well, it is and it isn't. 

It isn't, because it's so much more than what it outwardly appears to be.

It's the mixture of trepidation and excitement I felt when I took my first faltering rollings on what seemed to be a crazily unstable means of getting around on unforgiving asphalt. It's the fear of trying something new that I wasn't sure I could do, and also the fear of not trying something new, the two fears being like matter and antimatter, cancelling each other out in an explosion of "Fuck it! If I can't longboard at 63 I'm sure the hell not going to be any better at it next year, or the year after, or the year after, and then one year I'll have died without doing what..."

I just knew. That. It was what. I should do.

Younger dudes and dudettes, which by the laws of human longevity will encompass almost everybody who comes across these almost-64th-birthday thoughts, this is my geezerish advice for you:

Embrace your craziness. It's the most sane part of you.

That crazy idea, feeling, intuition, desire -- that itchy urge which won't go away no matter how much you try to scratch it into practical, logical, sane oblivion -- the notion that, when you get up the guts to share it with other people, they scream at you no, no, don't do it!, that could be the thing you need to do so badly, your life will scream at you no, no! if you march to the beat of someone else's drummer and DON'T do it.

This progressive feels fine about Obama's debate performance

After I finished watching a recording of the first Obama-Romney debate last night, I said to my wife (who saw it live at a friend's house), "I think Obama did fine."

Then I watched the MSNBC commentary.

Almost universally the liberal commentators, along with the conservative ones, said Obama's debate performance was a disaster. After listening to them for a while, I started to change my mind about how well he did.

But with the light of a new day, and further pondering of what went on during the debate, I'm back to feeling good about Obama.

Yes, he wasn't as aggressive, domineering, forceful, and energetic as Romney.

This seems to be the main reason people are saying that Obama lost the debate. Come on, though, are those qualities what matter most in choosing who to vote for as president? I'll agree that Romney won on style points, yet not on substance points.

It'll be interesting to see how the post-debate polls look.

I suspect, along with quite a few others, that Romney will get a two-point or so national bounce. However, it could be less, especially in the all-important swing states where seemingly more voters will have already made up their minds after an onslaught of campaign ads/appearances.

On satellite talk radio today I heard some chatter about how women may not have been as impressed with Romney's in-your-face attitude as men were. Personally, I thought Romney acted like a jerk quite a few times. Not at all presidential.

And then there's Romney's lying ways. Already the Obama campaign is using his two-facedness against him, just as Romney's Republican primary opponents did. I love this hard-hitting Obama TV ad, the first to be aired after the debate.

 

Great point at the end. If we can't trust Romney to be straightforward and honest as a presidential candidate, why would we trust him in the Oval Office?

Along the same line, a New York Times story analyzes Mitt Romney's sudden shift to moderation, after trying to look like a conservative through the primaries and up until now in the general election campaign.

He used the first presidential debate to speak out forcefully to its wide television audience against the idea of cutting taxes for the wealthy, noting that “high-income people are doing just fine in this economy.” Asked if there was too much government regulation, he answered, “regulation is essential.” And he praised the Massachusetts health care bill, calling it a “model for the nation.”

These are all things that President Obama says occasionally on the campaign trail. But in this case, the lines were uttered at the debate Wednesday night in Denver by his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney.

Mr. Romney ran to the right in the Republican primaries in 2008 and this year, describing himself this winter as having been a “severely conservative” governor. This week, he pivoted to the center, as many political analysts had long expected him to do, seeking to appeal to more centrist general election voters. In doing so, Mr. Romney used striking new language to describe his policy proposals on taxes, education and health care in ways that may assuage independent voters — but which may be sowing confusion about how Mr. Romney would govern.

Obama and his highly experienced campaign staff are used to ups and downs. This first debate likely is going to turn out to be a minor bump in the road on the path to his re-election. Currently Five Thirty Eight has Obama with an 87.1% chance of winning on November 6. I bet a week from now Obama still will be over 80%.

Nate Silver of Five Thirty Eight addressed the question that came to my mind after learning about the post-debate "who won?" polls. What relationship is there between winning a debate, and getting a bounce in subsequent head-to-head polls?

Answer: not much. There isn't a statistically significant relationship, just somewhat of a correlation.

Over all, the relationship between the winner of the instant-reaction poll and the change in head-to-head polls is positive, although not statistically significant.

But for what it’s worth, the historical data would project a gain of 2.2 percentage points for Mr. Romney in the head-to-head polls by this time next week.

That assumes there really is a genuine "Mitt Romney" running for president. Here's a comment on the above-linked post that I liked:

My question was "who is this guy"? He looked like Mitt Romney, but he sounded like a moderate Democrat. He came out forcefully......for what? He promised no new taxes, or tax cuts, for anybody, but he wants to cut 20 percent off marginal rates. He'll reduce the deficit somehow. Regulation is good. He will protect those he thinks are lazy bums. He'll increase defense and won't cut anything but Big Bird.

This guy won? By promising pie in the sky for all? No sacrifices necessary? Who wouldn't want that? Unfortunately, we've tried this before in 2001. Didn't quite work out. Beware, America! Just don't worry your pretty little head is not a plan.

Karma karma karma chameleon!

Barack Obama feels there are at least two Romney's running around, because the one who showed up at the debate last night sure didn't resemble the one that's been acting very differently for months and months. Watching Obama's Thursday speech made me feel a lot better about his Wednesday debate performance.

Romney's lies gave the Obama campaign a lot to work with. Overall, Romney's attempt to do his etch-a-sketch thing could hurt his election chances more than it helped in the debate.

Have a look and listen.

 

Senior citizen skateboarder with his new Haka Moko longboard

Here I am, timer-photo'd with my iPhone propped against my backpack, standing in the shadows on a sunny October Oregon day, on the Minto Brown Park trail which runs along the Willamette River (in the background) near Salem.

I like the looks of my new longboard, Kahuna Creations Haka Moko 47".

Since my birthday is approaching -- I'll be a freaking ancient 64 -- I felt entirely justified in getting myself a present to give to myself, my only problem being that I now need to forget what I've done so I can surprise myself on my actual birthday. 

Where's senility when I need it?

I've got nothing bad to say about my first longboard, a Landyachtz Switch. I was just curious to see how a longer longboard, made by the same Kahuna guys who came up with the Big Stick (in my right hand) that I like a lot, would feel like.

After a hour-plus of riding on Minto Brown trails, I can say, great.

The Haka Moko feels more stable to me. And I think it turns a bit more agilely. Since I don't know how to do any tricks on a longboard, including "switching" (a 180 turn), I'm not missing the bi-directional design of the Switch.

I think the Hako Moko is also more pushable with the Big Stick. Can't be sure of this, because my Big Stick technique is steadily improving. But it seems like I can lean forward into a push better on the Hako Moko, since the drop-deck design of the Switch keeps me a bit further back on the board.

Aesthetically, the embedded beach sand on the top of the Hako Moko is cool (and grippy). It even feels fine barefooted. The blue on my Big Stick matches with the blue of the Hako Moko, which matches with the blue semi-tied laces of my Teva shoes.

Today a bicyclist yelled at me as he went by, "Nice way to surf." For sure. No need to drive or fly to the beach. No need to wait for a wave -- the trails are always ready for a ride. 

I also took a upclose headshot, something I'm usually reluctant to do. One of my main techniques for coping with getting older is not looking closely at myself. (See "When a man goes to the dermatologist.")

Hey, not too bad. I'm old, but pretty damn fit.

And with that look, if longboarding doesn't work out I can always get a Harley and sit around on Saturday afternoons at Starbucks with the other gray-haired geezers having their end-of-life crisis. However, right now I much prefer senior citizen skateboarding.

Longboarding with the Big Stick is great exercise.

In 40 minutes I go about three miles, including a few stops and some walking, feeling both the aerobic buzz and some serious core/upper body workout. I get some puzzled looks from other trail users, but if I saw me coming along on a skateboard, pushing my way along with a metal stick, I'd be puzzled myself.

(Note to self: if you ever decide to rob a bank, don't make your getaway on the longboard. It's kind of difficult to look inconspicuous on it when you're 64.)

"New Scientist" says Obama will win. I love science.

Ah, I love science. Especially when it supports my political leanings. 

This week's issue of New Scientist (September 29, 2012) has an opinion piece by Jim Giles, a consultant for the magazine. It's title and subtitle:

No contest. Don't believe the US presidential opinion polls. Barring a political earthquake, Barack Obama will be re-elected at a canter, says Jim Giles.

Hey, makes sense to me. Here's some excerpts:

FROM tabloids and broadsheets to left-leaning blogs and conservative talk shows, the US media has been united on one point in recent months: the presidential election is too tight to call. 

...But it takes just a few clicks to go from that last article to one that tells a very different story - one much more in keeping with what science tells us about the election. The New York Times hosts FiveThirtyEight, a blog by statistician Nate Silver dedicated to crunching electoral numbers. It gives the Republican challenger Mitt Romney a 1-in-4 chance of victory. Over at PredictWise, another source of political forecasts, Romney's odds are only a shade better. The race isn't close or razor-thin or dependent on advertising. It is President Obama's to lose - something that readers are rarely told.

Why the discrepancy? To answer that question, think about what polls actually are. They are often taken as an indication of who will win the election. But polls only provide a snapshot, often with a large margin of error, of who would win if the election took place today. That's very different from what we really care about, which is the candidate most likely to win the real thing in November. That's a forecast. It's what FiveThirtyEight and PredictWise provide, and it's a more complex beast than a poll.

...If the models are robust, and their predictions strongly in favour of Obama, why are we being told that the race is a dead heat? I think it is partly a cultural issue.

...The hurly-burly of day-to-day politics is filled with dramatic events, like the recent leaked video of Romney talking in unvarnished terms about voters he cannot hope to win over. These events make the race feel like a roller-coaster ride.

The truth, as revealed by the science, is much more prosaic. Obama is way ahead and has been for ages. The meat and drink of daily political reporting - party conventions, gaffes, attack ads - have a limited and often passing impact. That's not to say that an unforeseen event couldn't put Romney in the White House. But it would have to be something huge, because studies of previous elections show outcomes depend far more on fundamental factors such as employment rates.

...The race is not tight, and the only honest approach is to say so.

Tell DirecTV how you feel about not getting Pac-12 games

Five weeks ago I started telling DirecTV that I wanted them to offer the Pac-12 Network now.

I've emailed customer service. I've had the Pac-12 channel finder notify DirecTV that I want to see every Oregon and Oregon State football game this season, not just the ones on channels (like ESPN) DirecTV does offer.

Four weeks ago I blogged about how DirecTV's excuses for shutting its subscribers out of the Pac-12 Network were annoying. 

They're much more annoying now.

Last Saturday I missed the Oregon State-Arizona game, which, when I read about it in the freaking newspaper the next day, turned out to have been tremendously exciting. Also, tremendously satisfying for us Oregonians, since OSU pulled out a win with a touchdown in the last few minutes.

I've read the DirecTV statement that they're ready to offer the games once they get a "fair deal" from the Pac-12 Network. Well, I'm sure the Pac-12 Network is a greedy corporate bastard, just as DirecTV is. 

But other "cable" systems, like Dish, DirecTV's satellite competitor, have managed to work out a deal with the Pac-12 Network that they found acceptable. So this holier-than-thou talk about fairness isn't cutting it with me.

Next Saturday I'm slated to miss another important Oregon State game against Washington State that's only being televised on the Pac-12 Network.

DirecTV customer service said in an email to me, "the vast majority of games, and those with the most conference or national title implications, will instead be televised by the ESPN family of networks and ABC Sports, FOX Sports and FSN, FX, CBS Sports and CBS Sports Network, NBC Sport and NBC Sports Network, and several other regional services, all of which are available on DIRECTV."

Hey, DirecTV: that's a lie.

Oregon currently is ranked #2 in the country; Oregon State #14. Both are undefeated. Thus every football game they play, every one, has important conference and national title implications.

So show the games!

Work out a deal with the Pac-12 Network like your competitors have. Every day you don't is another day that your subscribers who are Pac-12 fans are cursing you when, once again, they miss a game that is important to them.

I'm about to tell the DirecTV Corporate Office what I've just said in this blog post. Click here to express your own feelings. (Or the link at the top of this page, if that one doesn't work.)

Obviously DirecTV isn't getting a strong enough message from its disgruntled subscribers, or they'd have done the same sort of Pac-12 deal that Dish and others have accepted. (At the moment, reports are that no deal is in the works -- deeply irritating.)

I like DirecTV, so I'm reluctant to cancel and jump ship to the Dish Network. But if this ridiculous pissing match with the Pac-12 Network goes on much longer, I'm going to be seriously tempted to say goodbye to DirecTV.