tobedeus

Hey you, shithead "pro-life" hypocrite!

2009-05-31T20:10:00.000-07:00

You'll pardon my language for being a bit blue in light of this stunning news:

"Long a focus of national anti-abortion groups, including a summer-long protest in 1991, Tiller was shot in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church. Tiller's attorney, Dan Monnat, said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was in the choir at the time.

The slaying of the 67-year-old doctor is 'an unspeakable tragedy,' his widow, four children and 10 grandchildren said in statement. 'This is particularly heart-wrenching because George was shot down in his house of worship, a place of peace.'"

What. The. Fuck. Emphasis mine. In church. I have no doubt that God is thrilled with this news.

NPR reminds us of the cost of not getting hitched

2009-05-16T18:10:00.000-07:00

Impressively related to this earlier finger-wag at Michael Steele, and totally not in line with this blog's general ineptitude at tracking pop culture's zeitgeist, NPR has a classic reminder of the cost of not getting married, cf. Steele who claims gays getting married will cost small businesses, and that's why you should vote Republican (again, seriously??).

The cost of love isn't an abstract concept in my household: It's precisely $1,820 per year. That's the "gay tax" we shell out for me to be on my wife's health insurance plan, because her company must treat that benefit as additional taxable income.

[...]

Consider the cost to Randy Lewis-Kendall, who lost his husband, Rob, to colon cancer in 2007, their 30th year together. He is about to be denied the $1,161 per month he would have collected in Social Security survivor benefits had his marriage been federally recognized.

[...]

If you're in a same-sex marriage and your spouse leaves her estate to you — for example, the house you shared — you'll be forced to pony up as much as 50 percent of her estate's value in taxes. Price tag for federally recognized married couples? Zero.

So again, remind me how the cost of same-sex marriage is assessed to society? And, please, fill me in again on how not-marriage is equal to marriage and should be viewed as anything other than a shameful slap in the face like Plessy? Go on, Michael Steele. As a black man I'm sure you have some insight on that point.

I'm listening.

Republicans find drowning man, proclaim him savior, give him water (just in case he's thirsty)

2009-05-16T10:23:00.000-07:00

Michael Steele probably shouldn't be leading the Republican Party:

"Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

'Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,' Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. 'So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.'"

One, seriously?

Two, if the younger generations are largely supportive of gay couples and marrying them, then your political solution is to stop demonizing them, Michael Steele. Your progressive Republican values are simply trying to find a new way to hate on them and make-slash-keep gay 'unions' or WTF-ever separate and unequal. *bzzzt!* The correct 'new Republican' way to deal with gays, at least on a federal level, is to give up and leave the issue to the states. No "fag blood" / "AIDS blood" / put-your-favorite-offensive-saying here on your hands that way, and you can leave it to the state-level folk to explain why they love the 'mos :) You've simply gotta give up on the idea that the gays are your whipping boy. What vision. Talk about leading the Republican Party into the future!

Three, you all seriously have to give up on the Grover Norquist version of "fiscal conservativism". That has about zero traction right now and is just the most awesomest way to make it clear to the world you have no intention of being a team player; you all just want to be naysayers. The lady said she was fiscally conservative but that does not, implicitly or explicitly, mean that she is against any and all spending. And moreover, if she's not already against gay marriage, you've just alienated her by trying to reinforce discriminatory, artificial subclassing of people who are probably her friends. Also, excellent vision.

Y'all need to work on A) coming up with new ideas that invigorate voters, and B) not alienate the new voters who are ripe for the picking. When the economy's in the crapper, people seriously couldn't care less about your quickly-becoming-antiquated social values. They care about having a job, putting food on the table, and whether or not they can pay the doctor's bill. Trying to squish the gays in there as a legacy plank in the platform is silly, unnecessary, and insulting (I would think both to homos and to hicks), so seriously, get over it.

A little partisanship cures all your budget woes...

2009-05-03T13:46:00.000-07:00

To be fair, it's not like I expected anything different. But it's so disheartening to have elected officials who refuse to handle the fiduciary matters we hired them to do, instead deflecting the question back to the utterly uninformed masses, and the best the political establishment can come up with to help us sort this out is transparent, unabashed partisanship.

Direct democracy, which is what Props 1A-1F are, doesn't offend me prima facie. The success of direct democracy, however, hinges (almost) entirely on a well-informed, participatory electorate. I vote every chance I get and I love reading ballot propositions and discussing the pros and cons with my fellow citizens, and I tell you what -- even I can't find a damn bit of good, straightforward information on what's going on with these proposals. As best I can tell, the "public information" campaigns are essentially presenting the same information ("we're fucked") while coming to precisely opposite conclusions ("so vote (yes | no) on election day").

Naturally, one place one might turn to look, in ceding a bit of electoral independence, is to some sort of prominent proxy institution like the political parties. But literally all you get there are arguments of definition by opposition:

"Republicans have been pushing for state spending caps around the country, and it made no sense for us to welcome one here when Democrats have been fighting them everywhere else."

Get that? Republicans like this, and we're not Republicans, so we don't like this. How nuanced.

"Whatever way the vote goes on the propositions, we can't let it break up our solidarity of the Democratic Party," he said in a speech before the voting.

Party first, comrades.

"Prop. 1A was the ransom (Democratic legislative leaders) were forced to pay to the Republican minority," said Taiz. "Prop. 1A flies in the face of core Democratic values and forces us to live the Republican dream."

My team good. Your team bad. There's no information here; just saying "it's a Republican idea therefore it's bad" is about the worst kind of information out there; if anything it's making the public less well-informed because they think they know which team they're playing for, but they still have no idea what they're voting on. Even the Chron's synopsis of the measures is horrid:

Prop. 1A: Caps future state spending, increases the state's rainy day fund and triggers $16 billion in tax extensions.

Prop. 1B: Provides $9.3 billion in new school funding, but only if Prop. 1A also passes.

Prop. 1C: Modernizes the state lottery and allows the state to borrow up to $5 billion against future lottery revenues.

Prop. 1D: Moves $600 million in 1998's Prop. 10 tobacco tax money to the general fund to help balance the budget.

Prop. 1E: Moves $450 million over two years from 2004's Prop. 63 mental health money to the state's general fund.

Prop. 1F: Bars raises for government officials in deficit years.

What does all this mean?! Help!!

Baby snail

2009-04-18T14:45:00.000-07:00

Found him on my rosemary bush this morning!

UPDATE: According to this, snails hate highly aromatic herbs. Which explains why I found this guy on my rosemary bush, right next to my explosively-growing lavender... Hmf.

Bringing American freedom to Iraq

2009-04-17T10:56:00.000-07:00

I guess the Bush administration can count this among their successes of bringing the American way of life to Iraq:

A shadowy group has posted signs around the Iraqi capital's main Shiite working-class district of Sadr City naming alleged homosexuals on a list and threatening to kill them.

"We will punish you, perverts," the posters say.

And I know, I know, it's not fair to a lot of people to say that America is that harsh on gays, but in so many ways, it is. There are extreme examples and less extreme examples, but ultimately I don't see how close you have to get to the issue before it looks like there's not a fundamental underpinning of "we don't like you and you're not welcome here" to the whole thing.

Also, "puppies" (first link above) is about the coolest slang term for 'you homos' in history. American gays might get some traction with a little Lakovian reframing, eschewing "queers" or "fags" for "puppies". Who doesn't like puppies?!

Credit: Pirate Scott, Creative Commons (Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic)

Conservatives love teabagging

2009-04-15T14:39:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: I was gonna stay away from the obvious, sophomoric teabag humor, but when I saw that, indeed, they teabagged the Wabash, I'm sorry, but you freakin' asked for it.

No doubt -- I'm away from the TV but I have no doubt -- there's much excitement in the conservative punditsphere over the apparent populist uprising taking place against taxes, which the conservative punditsphere doesn't bother to differentiate from "big" (i.e., wasteful) government. I'm with MSNBC on this little family dispute:

[CNBC's tantrum-throwing NYSE floor reporter Rick Santelli] also said despite the claims from others in the media, including people at CNBC’s sister network MSNBC, calling the movement “Astroturf,” Santelli declared it a grassroots movement.

“I think from a grassroots standpoint, I’m sure some of the media out there is not going to peg it that way, but isn’t it about as American as it gets – for people to roll their strollers and make their signs and go voice their opinion about the direction of the country?” Santelli said. “Good, bad or indifferent – that’s a great thing. There’s not a lot of countries, of course, that afford their people that, that type of right. It’s a great thing.”

Yes, why on earth would 'some media out there' not call this 'grassroots' effort grassroots? Because, quite simply, 'Astroturf' is what this is:

The tea parties were promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington and led by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, a lobbyist whose corporate clients including Verizon, Raytheon, liquor maker Diageo, CarMax and drug company Sanofi Pasteur.

That, people, is not a grassroots, populist uprising. That is an uprising brought to you and underwritten by big business and big government. That is not the peasants sharpening their pitchforks, it's pawns being played in the game. It's simulacrum. Well, and to be fair, it's very effective politics. The slick political insiders convinced the peasants to do the insiders' bidding while convincing the peasants that it was their own idea; and that it is for their own good. Deceptive, but incredibly effective. Or in other words, the usual old-guard Republican game.

Indiana preparing for Obama's gun ban

2009-04-13T20:00:00.000-07:00

Evidently word has made it to Indiana that the liberals, progressives, hippies, peaceniks, treehuggers, atheists, gays and communists -- and oh yeah, that guy they supported for President -- are coming to take their guns. Hoosiers are a scrappy bunch though, and it seems as though preparations are already underway for the coming firearm prohibition:

"A man died Monday, days after he was involved in a swordfight with the grandson of a woman who was killed when she tried to intervene in the fight, police said.

Keep it classy, Indiana :)

Senior Seating

2009-04-11T20:08:00.000-07:00

Well, you know as well as I do that when someone leaves their blog unmolested for two straight months, that's the end of that. So don't be surprised if and when this all goes kaput. On the other hand, dear reader, since you're here, may I pass this along?

I've often wondered about the politics of the ADA seats on BART. They're labeled that "Federal law requires these seats be made available to seniors and people with disabilities" -- doesn't seem super-political, right? But what about pregnant women? It's considered good etiquette to offer pregnant women -- well, to offer them any seat, but those seats in particular. But on the other hand, how do they feel about their condition (or child) being called a disability? I still don't understand that. But the other day the "senior" thing finally happened: A guy walked in and a lady offered him her seat. He asked "Oh, are you getting off at the next stop?" and she said "No, seniors..."

Fortunately, the guy had a good sense of humor about it; in fact, everyone in the immediate area did. He gave her a hard time, but did end up accepting the offer, as most of us in the vicinity chuckled. I guess from now on my standard response to such questions will be "No, it's OK." Maybe 'cause it's just the nice thing to do.

Phelps smokes weed, destroys conservative narrative

2009-02-01T10:30:00.000-08:00

Of course Michael Phelps has smoked weed. But you wouldn't know it from the flabbergasted reaction of Drudge Report and other sensationalist online rags: "THIS is the astonishing picture which could destroy the career of the greatest competitor in Olympic history."

No, actually, it can't destroy his career. He's already won 14 freaking Olympic gold medals.

It can, however, destroy the conservative narrative that's been shoved down our throats by Nancy Reagan and the Office of National Drug Control Policy for the last three decades or so.

The shock that everyone is reported is that -- have you heard? -- Michael Phelps has smoked a little Mary Jane on occasion. Or at least once. The shock that isn't reported is that, you know, funny, he's the most successful Olympic athlete and he appears to have done so whilst having some interaction with controlled substances. Which means that the egg I fried for breakfast this morning might just not be like your brain on drugs. It might be something like part of a delicious breakfast sandwich, for example.

Gotta love this AP follow up wherein Phelps promises "I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again." You heard it here first: Michael Phelps will never ever let someone take pictures of him smoking out of a bong again. Ever.

On medical bills and health insurance, part II

2009-01-22T19:55:00.001-08:00

So with the worst of the situation behind me, and only a reasonable amount of manageable debt in front of me, part 2 of this series is where I would like to focus on the sort of 'take-home' messages I've learned in the hope that they give you ideas if you find yourself in this conundrum.

1. The first thing the insurance company tells you is most likely not the whole story. In my case, not a single EOB they sent me was accurate the first time. I had to write letters of appeal for each.

I realize I fell prey to this, especially, because I received emergency care at an out-of-network provider. But, on the flip side, you must push back when the insurance company tells you "no" -- especially if you've had health care provided as the result of an emergency. Even HMO plans account for treatment that is emergent in nature, even if it's out of network. True, you might not end up getting what you believe to be a fair shake, but chances are good that the company should be paying out more than they are.

2. The insurance company is a business. Businesses are designed to turn profits. The way they make profit on your health insurance is by avoiding paying for your coverage in any way possible. Normally, of course, they avoid paying for your coverage because you remain healthy, and that is ultimately a good thing. But when it comes to paying out on a bill, they will fight tooth and nail over every last penny. Their strategy is, in essence, to pay as little as possible, in the hope that you go away. If you do not think you've received adequate coverage, there are remedies available to you, which leads me to point three...

3. Write letters of appeal. Do not call to appeal. If you write a letter of appeal, your appeal will be acknowledged, considered, and possibly acted upon; not to mention the fact that you have a record that you did in fact file an appeal. If you call and appeal, you will speak with a person whose job it is to tell you as little as possible and get you to hang up the phone. They are called 'customer service' but they're not there to serve you -- they're there to prevent you from seeking information or filing a successful appeal. They're 'service avoidance specialists'. The people on the phone can sometimes -- sometimes! -- help you ascertain why a claim was denied, but otherwise, they're pretty worthless. You are much better off keeping the communication in writing so there is clear evidence of the decision-making process.

4. Know the laws of your area. I was fortunate enough to discover that California, for example, has a series of income thresholds under which discounted care is provided by public hospitals. As a result, I discovered I would be eligible to receive a discount on my share of the bill if I filed for the discount and met certain requirements. It took a little bit of time, but moved my share from an unfathomable $40,000 to a still-unbelievable-but-possibly-manageable $12,000. I don't know about you, but my time is worth 28 large.

5. Contact an advocacy agency, or at least learn about their services. I was lucky, also, to find a local advocacy agency that had lots of literature online about the right, legal way to approach hospital bills: what you can contest, what you should pay if you can, where you should plan to fight in court if you need to. I never wound up consulting with them directly, but they gave me the confidence to prepare to, and to interact with the insurance company as though I were willing to put up a legal fight, which, incidentally, I was.

6. Be prepared to use threat of legal counsel for leverage -- but only if you are actually prepared to do so. The final step in escalation is, of course, the threat of legal action. In high-stakes poker games like this, though, the last thing you want is for someone to call your bluff. I eventually won my battle with the insurance company, after a year of back-and-forth, when I realized I was no longer able to negotiate the situation on my own. I knew the next step would certainly have to be one of the following: Escalate my case to the California Department of Insurance Consumer Protection division, escalate my case to the courts and hire a lawyer, or possibly both. At wit's end and exhausted by the fight, I told the insurance company I would need all materials related to their decision to withhold an extremely large chunk of coverage so that I could provide it to the Department of Insurance and, if necessary, legal counsel. I do not know if, perhaps, the insurance company had a sudden change of heart like The Grinch (their hearts grew three sizes that day?) or if they realized I had fought them this far and I would certainly continue to do so... Ultimately it doesn't matter. I held off on the "I'll sue you!" threats as long as I could. I worked toward an amicable resolution, and I was stymied at every chance. I was serious, I would have retained a lawyer, and I would have taken the bastards to court. But I would also add, do not play with that fire if you are not prepared to be burned. Theoretically, the court could've said "Sorry, Charlie, you lose" and I would've been out the 12 grand for hospital bills plus the attorney fees. So seriously, don't play fast and loose on that one.

7. The people in the billing office can be your friend. Empathize with them as best you can. You'll be frustrated as hell and want to scream at them, but ultimately it's the billing office, not insurance, that decides when your account is irrevocably in arrears and seeks collections action against you. Having even a begrudging ally in the office helps. San Francisco General Hospital Medical Group's billing office was full of pawns and douchebags who would do nothing to help. Nothing. Not help me, not help me with a billing plan, not help deal with the insurance or explain the surgical situation to them (it was a long, difficult surgery). So I hope the head bastard there -- whose name I keep to myself out of an inexplicable sense of goodwill towards man -- rots in hell or at least, before he dies, is treated to the same offensive indifference to his well-being that I was. On the other hand, San Francisco General Hospital, while not helpful really at all, was at least understanding and patient in regards to my battle with insurance. I kept them appraised, faxed them the documents the insurance company and I were exchanging, and helped them to realize I was not, in fact, ignoring my medical bills but rather, working my ass off to insured they got paid as quickly as possible while also maintaining financial justice for me.

8. You are not alone. Your medical debt is not a mark of shame, but a call to action. If you have been fucked by this system that is more than happy to feast on the carcasses of the dead and diseased, the poor-to-moderately-successful, the insured-but-not-well-enough... Speak up. Put a face on the situation. Let your friends and family know that it's not just somebody else getting screwed by the system. Let them know that capitalism does well, but when it comes to medical care it does not do well enough. Say your piece, express your anger, share your despair. There are lots of us out there who have been through this and who know better not because of ideology but because of bloody, nasty, stressful, awful experience. The system is broken and more markets and more greed and more profit over patients is not the answer. Let's fix it. Soon.

Rock Concert

2009-01-11T00:09:00.000-08:00

I'm in San Francisco for a very long weekend, due to the Linguistics Society of America conference which has just been amazing.

I love getting in touch with my researcher friends and advisers, and it really makes me miss my studies in the field.

I really wonder if I won't end up back at study some day soon, as my participation over the last few days has reminded me that I love this field and am so fascinated by the work of linguistics.

Before heading out for a social gathering with friends and colleagues, we encountered a concert on the sidewalk.

Random, but still, I'm so glad I live here! :-D

On medical bills and health insurance, Part I

2009-01-04T20:13:00.000-08:00

Having spent more than a year struggling to get just treatment in the runaround that is the patient-insurance company-hospital fiasco in the US, I'm writing these two (perhaps three) posts detailing my experience and how I've learned individuals can advocate for themselves in the health care and billing industry. Part 1, below, is a straightforward account of the steps I've taken to seek appropriate remedy for my medical bills, along with a brief bit about how I wound up acquiring those bills in the first place. Part 2, forthcoming soon, will be some reflection and suggestions with respect to how to handle a situation like this. God willing, you and your family will never need them. Nevertheless, I want to put them down in writing so that they might possibly help someone avoid some of the time, worry, and indigestion this kind of situation causes.

---------------------------

Last October, as my surgeon put it, my "face got stomped on". I don't remember what happened; I was walking to the train to head home for the evening, stirred slightly when there were flashing lights and paramedics cutting my (incredibly cute, brand new, and now ruined) zip-up sweater off. I wouldn't say I actually regained consciousness, though, until some time later, in the hallway of the ER, lying in a hospital gown on a bed.

Also, for the record, everything is now put back together, aside from a little more dental work, and the inside of my mouth and my jaw is essentially as normal as it'll ever be. For some extra-exciting freak-out factor, here's what my X-ray looked like while my jaw was immobilized to allow the bones to heal (sorry if this seems gratuitous, but it's a really cool picture):

Without putting too fine a point on it, let's just say that my initial impression of what was "fair" for me to pay on this experience was the "out of pocket maximum" cap that the insurance company espouses in their policy: $6,000 per year for out-of-network expenses. Given that San Francisco General was an out-of-network provider, you can understand why I was expecting to pay about that amount. You can also understand my surprise, horror and anger when insurance refused coverage almost the entire way, leaving me with a tab far in excess of six large. The 'happy ending' is that I wound up paying about the maximum out-of-pocket cap amount for my medical services in the end, even though it came about through ways I find unacceptable. I am healthy again, and aside from a credit card balance (low interest til 2011, thankfully), I'm none the worse for the wear financially, either.

So what follows here is an account of the appeal and grievance processes I went through to settle my hospital bills. Several things of note here:

1. Not a single bill was correctly processed by the insurance company on their first 'try'.

2. Some coverage errors were the result of the service provider, but most were the result of screw-ups, or possibly just posturing (I have no evidence of malice, but lots for complete ineptitude), at the insurance company.

3. I'm including vague dollar amounts here not to show off, but to give you an idea of how terrified I was throughout this 14-month process of just trying to be treated reasonably by the insurance company and billing offices. When was the last time you got a $96,000 bill for anything? Exactly. It's a great motivator, but I'm sure the process was damaging to my health and recovery because I got to spend so much time worrying myself sick over how I'm going to cover these amounts without going into collections or bankruptcy or just a lifetime of insurmountable debt.

4. There is hope if you A) have appropriate insurance and B) are willing and able to be a vigilant, tenacious, almost-annoying fuck about it. You can't just be a nice, reasonable person because the companies involved don't care -- nor are they nice or reasonable. The trick is that you can't be a jerk, either, because everybody knows (and every piece of paper you sign at the hospital says) you're ultimately the one left holding the bag.

A brief glossary:

EOB -- Explanation of Benefits. A good document to have, as it outlines for you A) the amount the insurance company is covering, B) your copay and deductible amounts, C) the amount the insurance company is not recognizing, and D) the amount the provider is allowed to charge you for the items considered in the claim.

Deductible -- The amount you're required to pay out of pocket before your insurance actually kicks in.

Copay / Coinsurance -- The amount you're required to pay to make up the amount due for covered charges.

Out of pocket expense -- The amount you pay out of pocket but only for covered charges. N.B. charges the insurance company chooses not to recognize as Usual, Reasonable and Customary do not count toward any out of pocket expenses, even though the expenses are out of pocket. Lovely phraseology, huh?

Usual, Reasonable and Customary -- Excuse used by an insurance company to literally ignore charges in your medical bills. This is allegedly related to the services rendered and the average cost of said services in a given area. Insurance companies will not provide you with their methodology for arriving at this figure, though they will hold you responsible if your costs exceed the Usual, Reasonable and Customary amounts. If any of your fees get UCR'd it's literally as if they don't exist -- except, of course, that you still have to pay for it, you just get zero insurance consideration at all.

Hospital bill ($96k):

-Received notice from insurance while at home with my jaw wired shut that my case is going to "utilization management" and will have to investigate medical necessity on receipt of my medical records.

-Received an EOB covering $0 of $96k in hospital charges.

-Called insurance company to verify; was told that I should have chosen an in-network provider. We determined the charges were for OB-GYN procedure and diagnostic codes. Data entry error at the hospital.

-Hospital corrects and rebills insurance.

-Received notice from insurance that due to lack of receipt of my medical records, they are denying coverage.

-Write appeal letter to insurance co. Sternly worded.

-Hospital writes sternly-worded appeal letter to insurance, indicating the emergency admission and expectation of payment for that reason.

-Contact hospital for fully itemized bill. No progress on appeal or new EOB.

-Appeal is granted; insurance company agrees "to pay for dates of service at the participating [i.e., in-network] benefit level."

-New EOB arrives covering $55k of $96k. $41k remains my responsibility due to treatment at out-of-network facility and charges exceeding Usual, Reasonable and Customary rates.

-Contact insurance co. via phone to explain that "the participating benefit level" means they do not get to pull out-of-network excuses or Usual, Reasonable and Customary rates. Of course, no progress because phone calls are worthless for resolving anything.

-Appeal again to insurance, this time citing for them their description of their coverage for these services "at the participating benefit level." Point out that in the plan, it says "When you choose a participating provider, you will not be responsible for any amount in excess of the negotiated rate", so if they are covering the dates of service at "the participating benefit level" then in no way should I be held "responsible for any amount in excess of the negotiated rate", whatever that rate may be.

-File for charity / discount care program which lowers charges for individuals below certain income thresholds. I was eligible for the very top level of discount care, meaning the charges certainly weren't going away, but the hospital agreed to lower the amount due from about $41k to $13k. When you're as desperate as I was then, you take the victories however they come.

-Receive notice of adjustment by the insurance company as a result of my appeal: They agree to cover the entire amount less copay and deductible.

Final outcome: Receive bill from hospital: $450.

Ambulance bill ($1k):

-Receive EOB covering charges at a level the policy doesn't even allow (In my case, 70% out-of-network coverage, 90% in-network coverage, 90% emergency, with ambulance service necessarily qualifying as an emergency).

-Write appeal to insurance pointing out the policy says they cover all ambulance service at 90%.

Final outcome: Receive new EOB & appeal response indicating correct 90% coverage rate.

Professional Services bill ($6k):

-Received EOB indicating ~$1k applicable to deductible and my responsibility; $5,400 of anesthesiology eligible for $144 in payment (in other words, I owe $5200 on that bill).

-First threat by San Francisco General Hospital Medical Group (SFGHMG) of account collections.

-Appeal to insurance co. on the basis of unreasonable coverage due to emergency admit.

-Appeal approved, but only to pay the allowed benefit at 90%, resulting in about $40 additional coverage, thanks.

-In phone call with insurance company, discover I have no grounds to appeal the amount of allowed benefits, meaning only the service provider can do so.

-Appeal to SFGHMG to forestall collections while dealing with insurance; request review of file to make sure correct procedure and diagnosis codes; request SFGMG file appeal over amount of allowed benefits.

-Discover SFGHMG has not complied with my request to appeal the amount of allowed benefit by the insurance company. Write an angry letter to them requesting more time without collections action; request they clarify with insurance company the emergency nature of the admit, the lengthy nature of the procedure, and defend their billing as "reasonable and customary in fact".

-No one can or will help with insurance. More collections threats; I acquiesce but manage a 20% discount for in-full payment.

-Move balance to a well-timed, low-interest balance transfer offer on a credit card.

Final outcome: Still paying off a bit by bit, cussing under my breath each time, but thankful it's manageable.

Surgeon's bill ($3k):

-Receive EOB denying coverage.

-Follow up with insurance company via phone; they say the procedure and diagnosis codes are wrong.

-Contact billing office. Procedure and diagnosis codes are wrong. Will rebill.

Final outcome: Receive EOB allowing coverage; billing office confirms insurance payment is adequate to close the account.

Charitable giving in tough times

2009-01-03T13:19:00.000-08:00

You know those things on your to-do list, the ones that just sit around because, well, that whole litany of excuses?

Yeah, me too. But I got around to one of them just recently. Kiva.org is, as they like to say, all about "loans that change lives".

This is absolutely not charitable giving in the traditional sense, where you give some organization some cash and they do whatever they want with it leaving you to question the efficacy of your dollars and cents. Kiva is different, because at Kiva, you fund a loan to an individual. Kiva is the mouthpiece to the internet, announcing which initiatives need money and keeping the user, you, as the underwriter of the loan, informed about what's going on. Kiva also deals with the balance sheets, making sure that the on-the-ground organizations they connect to users are appropriately distributing funds and collecting loan payments. And the real kicker, of course, is that like any loan, if it's successfully repaid, you end up with your money back; preferably, to loan to another entrepreneur in a developing area.

For me, the time wasn't right with Kiva when I first learned about it. I wasn't sure of my employment situation, I wasn't sure how much of the massive medical bills I had at the time would end up as my responsibility. I was still giving to other organizations as I continue to do today, but believe it or not, the downturn in the economy has made me realize the time is better now than ever for giving through this micro-loan system.

What I keep coming back to is that the money comes back to you. This isn't a donation, where your cash just disappears. It's a loan to help out an entrepreneur. And when the term is over, you can loan that same cash out again to someone else. Is this not an incredibly novel and opportune way to help people at an economically uncertain time?

To me, this seems like an fantastic opportunity to really drive some effect out of money you'd normally consider a charitable donation. I think I'm in a position now to really give this a shot. My challenge to you -- and to myself -- is: barring some unforeseen hardship, I'm going to loan $25 per month through the micro-loan system Kiva has set up, for all of 2009. My first loan is to Nancy from Bolivia, who's going to use her short-term loan to buy additional goods to stock her grocery store. Nancy's had a loan before, and is rated as a top-notch client who is always prompt with her loan payments. The company on the ground she's dealing with has loaned over $500,000 to over 1,000 entrepreneurs. Together they have a delinquency rate of 0.02% and a default rate of 0%. Good luck, Nancy!

You can check out my progress and loans here. Please feel free to drop me a line if you're up to the challenge so we can connect on Kiva.org. I think we'll have a good time giving this a shot, and I think we'll make a difference while we're at it.

Merry Christmas to All

2008-12-25T12:27:00.000-08:00

And to all a good night! My best to you and yours in this holiday season and for 2009!

(I am in Indiana freezing my butt off and definitely longing for a return to Oakland! Just a note to let y'all know I'll be around in a bit, but for now posting will be basically nonexistent. Hopefully material is forthcoming early next week!)

Kindness is contagious (just please don't spell 'contagious' with a k).

2008-12-15T13:16:00.001-08:00

There are a few blogs dedicated to public transit in this area. Many of them are rather replete with condemnation and exasperation at the behavior of others, the operation of the systems, and so on. This is not one of those posts.

No, instead, I think it's just worth pointing out a reminder that kindness is contagious, sometimes in spades. BART was pretty crowded today, basically at crush load for that system. One lady got up out of her seat and offered it to an elderly man, which surprised but pleased me. Then it happened again with someone else. Then again! Three times I saw strangers just being considerate of those around them. And it all happened because one person did a nice thing on a crowded train, and scored 200% ROI. That's not too bad. We should all remember to give it a try sometime!

Nightlife in the DTO

2008-12-14T14:38:00.000-08:00

There is frequently talk of -- and rightfully so -- ways to make transit in the East Bay more effective, or lamenting how the East Bay gets screwed. I don't wish to contribute to the 'effective' discussion right now :) Instead, how about a pipe dream: What about transit as a vehicle to make the city itself more attractive as a destination for dining and nightlife? What about transit that makes people want to go out and about, stroll the streets and enjoy the city's amenities, which in turn helps to foster a collective sense of security and community.

The Tribune carried a nice piece about how, actually, there is some pretty cool, pretty classy (OK, well, classy on a level of your choosing, lookin' at you, Ruby Room and I adore you when you're sedate, Radio) nightlife to be had in Oakland, particularly in some up areas that are legitimately in a position to start kicking some ass, like Downtown, Old Oakland, Uptown and Jack London Square. Yes, there's Rockridge, and yes, it's my hood, and yes, I like living here. But Rockridge is basically a bedroom community that happens to have an atrociously slow two-lane funnel into hardcore college town. That's why I feel at home here. It's about 30 blocks down Broadway that I think there is some magic to be made.

There are several great areas with fun night spots that I'm familiar with in that area. However, they're also connected by areas you just might not want to walk through at night, y'know what I mean? It seems like having a bus loop from Broadway and Grand down to Embarcadero, over to Oak and up Lakeshore / Harrison to grand would be an amazingly cool shuttle route. It has a lot of advantages, including the senic Lakeshore drive. From there, it's up to Grand where there are some fun restaurants and such. The quick spin over to Broadway & 19th includes easy access to BART, The Uptown, Luka's / Franklin Square Wine Bar / Fox Theater. Then it's down Broadway past 12th St. BART / AC Transit hub to Old Town Oakland which has its share of classy and fun dinner and bar places that people don't go to because who knows why. Swing down to Embarcadero and through the nightlife in Jack London Square, including the movie theater down there, Yoshi's, and other things I'm sure I'm missing. By returning to Lake Merritt on Oak, there is yet another convenient connection to BART.

It seems like this would create a local shuttle that would be incredibly easy to use, transport people between areas of downtown when they might not want to walk in between, and create a network of interfaces with the BART system as well as existing AC transit options, to boot.

With this size route, I believe only one or two buses would be needed to provide frequent-enough service, and would provide tremendous marketing appeal. Yes, there are AC Transit buses that already cover that route, but none which are easily branded as the Oakland Nightlife Express or whatever. The focus group could surely come up with a better title than that. But you see where I'm going: This sort of thing could really plant the seed in people's minds that there are things to do in Oakland and the nightlife scene is actually pretty cool. No, it's not San Francisco, but (and you'll pardon me if this sounds glib) who cares? Building up the offerings around the lower part of Broadway can only improve the image of downtown Oakland, and I think this kind of concept just might be the ticket.

Coleman's Teeth Remain In Narrow Lead

2008-12-05T11:00:00.000-08:00

According to a recent CNN report, Al Franken still trails Norm Coleman's teeth in the Minnesota Senate election recount. Coleman's teeth's host body, the most recent holder of the contested seat, was a Republican and staunch supporter of President George W. Bush. Coleman's teeth (pictured, left, delivering a recent statement to the media), on the other hand, having gained sentience and a sense of social justice all their own, promised to strike a more conciliatory, bipartisan tone than did the organism as a whole, in an attempt to ride the coattails of change promised by President-Elect Obama in the campaign for the White House.

More details as they become available.

Just as a reminder

2008-11-23T21:21:00.000-08:00

You're going to be hearing this kind of talk a lot as the Court deliberates on the constitutionality of how Prop 8 was enacted. It is completely disingenuous and without merit when dumbasses like this guy start saying things like:

"'If the court disobeys the constitution by voiding Prop. 8, it will ignite a voter revolt,' Thomasson said in statement released after the court agreed Wednesday to hear arguments over the validity of the constitutional amendment."

All we can do is remind people that if the Court finds Prop 8 was not properly slated on the ballot because it is a revision and not an amendment, then the court would be disobeying the constitution if and only if it does not void Prop 8. As much as these punch-drinkers want you to believe it, the Court is not hearing suits seeking to overturn the will of the voters; the Court is hearing cases about how the initiative was improperly slated on the ballot in the first place. Please, do not let people get away with saying the Court is undoing the will of the people or disobeying the constitution or acting outside the law or being 'activist'. This is a question of the legitimacy of the item being put on the ballot, not of the revision being made to the constitution.

More on Prop 8

2008-11-21T15:57:00.000-08:00

So in doing my research on Prop 8 and the ensuing legal challenges, here's what I've come up with.

1. The court is not going to rule to overturn the will of the people. The court can't do that. California amended its constitution with Prop 8 and it is that constitution the Supreme Court is charged with upholding.

2. The court may rule that Prop 8 was not properly added to the ballot and in so finding, invalidate the amendment. But why would the courts do this?

2a. The California Constitution establishes two 'levels' of change a ballot initiative can enact. The first, an amendment, is a relatively minor change to the constitution and can be put on the ballot by petition. The second, a revision, is a major change which alters not the text but the fundamentals of the constitution.

2b. Discrimination against 'suspect classes' (that is to say, a classification of people where using that classification as the sole judgment is suspect) is forbidden by the California Constitution.

2f. In the past, when the California Constitution has been amended to remove rights, those rights have been removed from all people. For example, when the courts had held that Calfornian's freedom from 'cruel or unusual punishment' and that execution was cruel or unusual, the Constitution was amended to remove that protection from all Californians.

2c. Gay people constitute a suspect class.

2d. Prior to the enacting of Prop 8, gay people had the right to marry.

2e. Following the passage of Prop 8, a suspect class is explicitly forbidden a right it once had, while the remainder of the population retains that right.

2g. Amending the constitution to remove rights of a protected class is thus unprecedented and represents a material change to the fundamentals of the California Constitution.

2h. As a result, what was placed on the ballot as an amendment is actually a revision and is not eligible for entry on a ballot by petition; it must be placed on ballot by a 2/3 supermajority of both houses of the California Assembly.

3. I like this argumentation very much. The Mormons will bitch and moan about how the courts are undoing the will of the people. But if the court rules in favor of what I outlined in 2, then the people en masse don't have a say in this until the Assembly acts on it. And we've just spent millions and millions of dollars on something that never should've been on the ballot in the first place.

4. Yes, this is very similar to a challenge against Prop 8 before the election, which was declined by the Court. However, in the interest of acting conservatively, the Court chose not to hear the case; if Prop 8 failed, they could get away without having to make a decision and it would have the same policy effect as if they'd heard the case and turned Prop 8 down from the ballot. Now, they evidently believe they do need to make a decision on the case, because whether they do or do not find the placement of Prop 8 on the ballot was appropriate has a net effect regardless of what they decide.

5. It looks like the petition drive to get a repeal measure for Prop 8 is in the works, and even if the Court finds against the folks filing this suit, we'll revisit this battle in two years' time.

When will my tax dollars start buying me wine?

2008-11-16T00:47:00.000-08:00

CNN Political Ticker reports on the swill the G20 leaders are quaffing while trying to solve the current financial crisis:

"According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as 'Fruitwood-smoked Quail,' 'Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb,' and 'Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus.'

To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com."

Now, I'm a liberal elitist, so 'herbs' like 'thyme' don't scare me. And I live in the Bay Area, so the idea of a fruitwood smoker (I mean, you have to admit, that's basically the gayest-sounding thing ever) doesn't scare me. The concept of fondue I find a bit passé, but neither George nor Laura Bush seem to -- how do I say it -- have their finger on the pulse of contemporary trends.

I am a bit of a wine geek, so I relish the importance of the right wine with the right food, and though I have never had a $500 bottle of wine, I am pretty gosh-darn sure there's no reason they should go dropping a McKinley per bottle to go with this meal.

To put us all at ease that our taxpayer dollars aren't being frivolously spent to pour extremely elegant rotten grape juice down the gullets of the world's dignitaries, the White House assures us thusly:

"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."

A group of 20 of your not-closest friends is an excuse to raid the Shafer?! Seriously? Let's take the wholesale-price argument at face value: The White House (that is to say, you and I) buys this at the 6-bottle wholesale price, meaning they pay the price of 6 bottles to buy a case of 12. According to Shafer's website, the 6 bottle price on a case of the current vintage Hillside Select Cabernet would be $1,290, or $107.50 / bottle.

So it's still a freaking Benji a bottle. Thank Jesus the conservatives are in power.

But the *really* offensive part of this is that they have no freaking business pouring relatively young Cabernet Sauvignon to pair with... quail?! Are you trying to drown the damn birds after you've already killed and cooked them? I'm sure they're delicious, but after masking all of its flavor with the tannins in even a 'delicate' Stag's Leap Cabernet Sauvignon (and if you think they're all 'delicate', go roast your palate at Chimney Rock and get back to me), it'll totally overpower the dish you're serving it with! They could've managed a reasonably good Pinot Noir for half the price, or maybe done something ballsy like a moderately oaked + malolactic fermented white variety or blend and gone with that. I think Caymus Conundrum would've been great with the quail and that stuff retails around $25. This offensive mispairing and overspending must come to a stop. President-Elect Obama (is that ever going to get old??), it's time for a change!

Election Reflection

2008-11-05T14:05:00.000-08:00

So California screwed the pooch on Prop 8, boo. Jimmy Dobson's raging hardon from tunring a blue state gay hatin' must be epic. Good for him, but if it lasts more than four hours it could be the Viagra, so call your doctor. And some other props I care about are very close. Looking down the scorecard from my recommendations, I see that my usual inability to vote in the same way as a plurality of my fellow voters is still largely intact, despite moving from Indiana to the Golden State. Go figure. Maybe I just like being a contrarian.

Obama won, which has me feeling excitement and hope in a dark part of my soul I guess I forgot I had. I've never voted in a presidential election that didn't end up with a goddamn buffoon running the country, so I know you can understand my consternation with these, what are they... emotions?

What's striking to me, less than 24 hours after the election, is how many black people there are on TV news shows all of a sudden. Not that there haven't been black pundits, but I find it interesting that suddenly there's a bumper crop of 'em. And if Obama isn't replaced by an African-American in the Senate, the Senate will have a goose-egg in the black representation column. I don't want to rain on the hope parade, but I think it's far too soon to say this election was truly transformative in American politics. God, I hope it is, but in the meantime I wonder if we've not run the risk of mistaking historical significance and a sign that says CHANGE! as real, material change to the political landscape.

Election Selection Suggestion Projection

2008-11-02T14:48:00.000-08:00

Having finally reached a point where I believe I know how I'm going to vote, I figure it's at least worth posting a few thoughts about the various ballot initiatives facing California / Alameda County / Oakland voters. This is my first "major" election in California, though I've voted several times in the other various and sundry we've had in the last two years. This ballot blows them all away, though: President, US Rep, State Senate, State Assembly, Judge, City Council, two Transit Directors, 12 state ballot initiatives, one public school initiative, two city initiatives, and two 'district' initiatives for things that I guess don't cooperate with other geopolitical boundaries.

I'd like to think I've put a fair amount of brainwork into figuring out how I believe the voting should go. Here are some thoughts; if you have other views please do leave a note in the comments.

1A: High-Speed Rail Bonds. $10 billion in bonds to start the construction of HSR between LA and the Bay Area, ultimately to Sacramento and San Diego. Anyone who's driven the I-5 corrior between SF and LA knows how stupid it is. And anyone who flies that much knows how ridiculous it is, too. Door-to-door travel times on the train will be as good as by jet if not better. This makes so much sense, I cringe to think it might not pass (but it will, handily, I believe). YES on 1A.

2: Standards for confining farm animals. Call me a hippie liberal douchebag if you want, but I don't believe the difference in cost between current guidelines and this new legislation will substantially affect the market. Let's not forget that the cost of moving eggs from Mexico to San Francisco is much, much greater than bringing them in from Livermore or Tracy or wherever. A projected marginal cost difference of $0.10 / dozen at the cash register seems worthwhile, and the best thing the opposition to Prop 2 has to offer is that it will increase our chances of catching bird flu. It's an incredible hypothetical straw man of a tall tale, believe me. YES on 2.

3: Children's Hospital Bond Act. It doesn't matter what your proposition is, if the best thing you have going for it is "But think of the children!" you provoke visions of a shrieking brain-decayed she-beast. You know, like Maggie Gallagher. I would love for someone to talk me down on this, but I don't understand what handouts to private children's hospitals is going to do for us. Not knocking the services they provide of course, but these initiatives read to me like an ultimatim: either give us the cash or we'll X, Y or Z, or punch your mom in the face or something. NO on 3.

4: Attempt to criminalize abortion in any way possible. Yeah, no. Parental notification law with no real protections for the girl who's preggers. There's no *reason* for this law, which is what irks me. NO on 4.

5: Nonviolent drug offenses, sentencting, parole, rehab. The arguments for and against this are totally weird. I do not get this or 9, which deals with bail. Unless I get a good case one way or the other, I'm tempted to leave 5 and 9 as no-votes. WTF on 5 and 9?!

6: Police and Law Enforcement funding. Arbitrary spending floors with no accountability or reform mechanism should reform be necessary. Poorly written and pretty awful as far as I can tell. No responsbility for results or anything, just "throw money at law enforcement" -- same thing that gets me about the US military budget. NO on 6.

7: Renewable energy generation. Props 7 and 10 also both smack of high-dollar handouts to private corporations with no oversight or mandatory ROI. The US gets screwed on this constantly with its telecom legislation and I do not understand why people tolerate such vauge and nebulous handouts of public money. If the energy generation that results from Prop 7 or 10 became part of the public portfolio and not just a free revenue stream for these corporations, maybe there'd be room to talk. I guess I don't see the public ROI for the cost here... NO on 7 and 10.

8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Amending a Constitution to eliminate rights is about the most unpatriotic, un-American, and frankly, pathetic, thing I can imagine. It's virtually unprecedented and completely damaging in the historical perspective, and it's unnecessary and wrong. Peace, love, and happiness, folks. I've given more money, thought, and panic to this than any other political initiative. In some ways I actually wonder if this isn't more important than the Presidential election. I mean, hey gays, what's Obama gonna do for you? Maybe nothing as vindictive and hurtful as McCain, but he's not exactly out there happy to give a speech under a Pride flag, don't forget. NO as forcefully as I can on 8.

11: Redistricting no longer in the hands of politicians. I understand this is construed by partisan Democrats as a Republican power grab. But among people most at risk under this law, you have... Partisan Democrats. So I wonder why they don't have a better idea? Power to the people; this sufficiently randomizes the selection committee and defines and approing majority in a variety of ways to ensure that even among the bipartisan members of the committee, no tyranny should take place. I like the law, I like that while it's written to uphold political dichotomy that dichotomy isn't explicitly Republican vs. Democrat. And I think the guidelines are clear enough: Gerrymandering districts for incumbent security is a sufficiently large threat to democracy that we ought not engage in it any longer. And I think that's true, so I'm voting YES on 11.

12: Veteran's bond act. This feels like a SUPPORT THE TROOPS kind of initiative here, and I don't quite get all the ramifications. Another one where I feel like I don't have a terribly well-formed opinion and would value some input. WTF on 12?!

N: School funding parcel tax. Even the Oakland Schools don't support N. That's good enough for me. NO on N.

NN: Police services parcel tax. I know a ton of people will disagree with me on this. All other issues aside, the Oakland Police Department needs our funding so that it can hire officers. If we do not take control of the crime issues in Oakland, the worst parts of this city will fester like an open wound. It kills me to love living here so much and embrace all the great things we have to offer as a community, and yet see the horrible, out of control things that continue to take place, day after day. There are very few cities in the world blessed with the breathtaking amenities we have, but prioirty one is in taking public safety issues head-on, because without that, everything else falls apart. YES!! in the imperative on NN.

OO: Fixing youth program funding as a percentage of Oakland general fund. Compelling arguments on both sides of the issue, but the bottom line is this: OO fixes the percentage of the GENERAL FUND that goes into these programs. This endangers, ironically, things like libraries and the parks system, which while substantial benefactors of youth programs themselves, fall outside the funding designation of Prop OO. OO makes no provisions for oversight of efficacy or incentivizing strong performance. OO is an unabashed fat cut right off the top to programs with absolutely no concern for any other area of the city budget. Especially given the budgetary K-hole the city is in right now, I don't see how, in good conscience, you could vote anything other than NO on OO.

VV: Public transit parcel tax for AC Transit. I don't use AC transit as much as I should, I'm afraid. Part of the problem is that their flat fare structure causes AC to be more expensive than BART for transit within the Oakland - Berkeley area for me. There's probably a whole post to deal with those demons. That said, AC transit is a massive and massively successful transit agency. Their services are desperately needed, and I believe the Bus Rapid Transit system they're talking about developing on Telegraph and International (is that last one right?) is incredibly important and would be a major boon to transit in the East Bay. In sum, $48 / year with all funding and oversight remaining local to ensure AC's viability and to shore up support for BRT, I think, is well worth the cost. YES on VV.

WW: Maintain current parcel tax for East Bay Regional Parks District. I hardly take advantage of the EBRPD as much as I should, yet I know how great this fund is. It's part of the awesomeness of the East Bay and we dare not let that go! YES on WW.

In defense of Sarah Palin

2008-10-13T19:09:00.000-07:00

Dropping the puck at the hockey game is a GOOD thing to do. It's not like the ball sports where dropping the ball is bad. She did just fine, releasing the puck from her grasp in midair and allowing ~~gravity~~ ~~intelligent falling~~ Jesus to do the rest of the work.

So she's approximately as ready to be president as George W. Bush who was an essentially powerless governor of a very large state and can perform sporting-event-opening ceremonial duties with aplomb.

Sleep well tonight, children. There's nothing to fear.

Urban sightings: Tumbleweave

2008-09-30T11:49:00.000-07:00

Sometimes when speaking about crime rates in Oakland, some people refer to it as the wild west.

On that note, this is what we in Oakland call 'tumbleweave'.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The basement

2008-09-23T11:53:00.000-07:00

Imagine my surprise to find a BART route map (albeit an old one -- notice the SFO-Millbrae connection) in the basement bar area.

Turns out it was legally obtained and everything. How awesome is that??

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Delicious!

2008-09-17T17:41:00.000-07:00

At least until Adam mentioned it smells like a wet dog.

UPDATE: It did.

Burying the lede

2008-09-15T19:01:00.000-07:00

I'm reading Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct cover to cover out of a bit of shame, due to the fact that it's a rather seminal work in the theory of language and I made it through seven years of higher education without reading more than excerpts from the damn thing. That aside, it's an interesting book, and substantially easier to read (doubtless as a result of the fact that when he, e.g., throws up Minimialist syntax trees I sort of take them in with a single glance) than I expected, and honestly, a little more thought-provoking as well.

So far, I feel like he's running the risk of falsely boosting descriptive / functional linguists beyond the claims their data and studies should be making (which is an oft-levied criticism of that group), while poo-pooing the inane complexities of formal linguistics approaches (which is an apt and oft-levied criticism of our side, too).

But Pinker does a great job of always, always keeping one foot in the real world no matter how far into some linguistics minutiae he chooses to delve. And for that, I commend him. The book was published nearly 15 years ago, and yet some things he says I still find striking today:

[P]hrases that are ordinarily buried deep in the tree can be moved to early in the sentence, where they can hook up with material fresh in the listener's mind*. For example, if a play-by-play announcer has been describing Nevin Markwart's progression down the ice, he could say Markwart spears Gretzky!!! But if it was Wayne Gretzky the announcer had been describing, he would say Gretzky is speared by Markwart!!!** Moreover, because a passive participle has the option of leaving the doer role, ordinarily the subject, unfilled in deep structure, it is useful when one wants to avoid mentioning that role altogether, as in Ronald Reagan's evasive concession Mistakes were made.

V Smoothe writes about a near-riot at a community development block grant meeting in West Oakland. Now, while I'm as stunned as you are that there would even be enough people at a CDBG meeting so as to facilitate a riot, I doubt either of us are as stunned as Nancy Nadel or the crowd whose authority she totally tried to usurp.

To watch all these people overfilling the room, people who just live here and want to make this city better and don’t know what the hell to do about it, so they latch onto this one thing and they all show up here for something that has just sat, neglected by most people forever, well, that’s just so incredibly cool to me.

Um…then it went…let’s say, downhill. Once the crowd quieted down, District 3 Councilmember Nancy Nadel stood up and spoke. I had been under the impression that the meeting would begin with us all getting an overview of the strategic plan developed by last year’s Board, in which they had identified four key areas they believed future funds should be spent. Instead, Nadel informed us (and I am not exaggerating here, she was quite explicit about this) that she had unilaterally decided that every last penny of D3 CDBG money would be going to her personal money pit, oh, I’m sorry, I mean “teen center,” and that, by the way, the CBDG Board, which used to meet monthly, would now meet only quarterly, and its only function would be to serve as the Advisory Board to her teen center.

The only thing more surprising than that to me is that through some supernatural act on the level of divine intervention, people this crooked manage to get re-elected time after time! Check out the quotage here:

It took a little while for the room to grasp what exactly was going on (myself included! I was just watching, in this kind of stunned daze, and then all of a sudden it hit me - omg what she’s trying to do here is like off the charts insane and why the hell am I not writing every word of this down and get your damn notebook out now you moron!), but suddenly, it was like you could practically see all the light bulbs going off in peoples’ heads as everyone in the room simultaneously realized just how much they were getting screwed. The protests got louder and louder and Nadel fruitlessly tried to calm the crowd, saying:

I hear that people are unhappy with that. But the decision has been made.

"[T]he decision has been made." Can you believe it? Good for her, to recognize that people figured out she was all up in their funding and that nuh-uh Nancy, you did not! So she dropped the agent, herself, from the sentence and now it sounds as if ta-da a decision happened! Wheeee!

But the dandiest of dandy little gems on this tack came from none other than Sarah Palin, who took time off from her legal wranglings with the Alaska legislature to Talk to Charlie Gibson:

"I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made."

Never mind the fact that she and the current administration are Christian extremists, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying other nations. Let's leave that aside and just go for the grammar of that last sentence.

One downside to using the passive is the promotion of the object to 'subject' position (or however you want to put it -- basically the object becomes the thing the sentence is about now). But what she does here is essentially to leave the object in situ in a small clause ('mistakes made') and fills the subject position with the dummy subject 'there'. She's not only passivized the agency out of the sentence, she's also basically swept the problem under the rug, keeping it as deep in linear order and syntactic structure as possible. Ronald Reagan, by comparison, looks like he's issuing an outright mea culpa, throwing himself prostrate before us in search of forgiveness.

Very crafty Sarah Palin. Very crafty indeed.

-----------

* - That's not an asterisk, it's my grain of salt.

** - You see how this doesn't actually have anything to do with "phrases ... hook[ing] up with material fresh in the listener's mind"? It's just putting one argument prominently at the front of the sentence. I don't see any hooking up going on really at all. I just don't think that this makes his point terribly well, something I think he may just be prone to. Not saying his underlying message is necessarily wrong, but this isn't the first time in the book that his supporting data has missed the mark.

Toaster

2008-09-12T08:37:00.000-07:00

While reminding myself to really sit down and bang out a good post this weekend, I also passed a toaster on my way to work.

Surely that indicates good luck in some culture?

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Major disasters and miserable failures

2008-09-01T11:37:00.000-07:00

AP sez: "Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is telling The Associated Press that he can't remember a time when FEMA was juggling so many major disasters at once."

Not true. I remember three years ago when FEMA was dealing with three major disasters at once: Katrina, Michael Brown, and George W. Bush.

Thankfully, it looks like Gustav let up a little bit before making landfall. Here's hoping for the best.

You're damn well right we can.

2008-08-28T21:05:00.000-07:00

So I've been meaning to write about all this gay shit for a long time, and it's just been difficult to sit down and crank it out. Not sure why, but I'm glad to have the challenge. Thanks for stopping by!

Several years ago, in another incarnation of this here blog, I posted an image of two elderly ladies who were the downfall of moral society and perhaps all of civilization. They were lesbians, you see. Lesbians, getting married. Not being happy with just an eternity of damnation, they were also intent on bringing us down with them.

I wrote that in jest, of course, because two old ladies exchanging wedding vows is somewhere between rainbows and teddy bears on the threat meter. And it was darling. They'd been partners almost their entire lives and finally realized the dream that nearly no lesbian couple in America had experienced before them: the exchange of wedding vows and the license of a state-sanctioned marriage.

And I now mention with a sadness and an incredible amount of respect that Del Martin passed away yesterday, at the age of 87. Her lawfully married parnter, Phyllis, had this to add:

"Ever since I met Del 55 years ago, I could never imagine a day would come when she wouldn't be by my side," Lyon said in a statement issued by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "I am so lucky to have known her, loved her and been her partner in all things.

Fifty-five years -- may we all be so lucky. Rest in peace, and thanks for giving 'em hell.

And to turn the topic now, let's move from an activist ending her long slog to a new young fellow whose bestowed titles range from 'freshly-minted gay icon' to 'Olympic champion'. For the first time ever, an out 'n proud gay man won an Olympic gold medal -- not that you would have known that from watching the coverage. With this stunning and essentially perfect dive, Matt Mitcham made Outsports cry and also lash out at NBC for its coverage which neglected to mention that, oh by the way, Mitcham's partner is in the stands and the significance of a out homo winning gold. I wish the kid my best, because like it or not, he's now an international celebrity and a hero to many (just read the first link in this paragraph if you doubt me). It doesn't hurt that he's just adorable, either.

On the one hand, I think it's a compelling story -- absolutely the kind of cutaway material Olympics coverage is known for -- how he walked away from diving, piddled around and did some odd jobs; thanks to his rock and partner, found a renewed interest and desire to compete; won the Olympic gold. I mean, really, that's the kind of stupid storybook stuff they can't make up.

On the other hand, I also think it's totally true that in a reasonable, compassionate society, the headline "Gay person does X" wouldn't be worth mentioning for most values of X. So in an odd way, I kind of appreciated watching the competition and not really having that be the big deal (I totally knew he was gay once I saw him mug for the camera after a dive, but still). At this point in our society's evolution, there's probably room for a little of both.

I look at Rachel Maddow, who's getting her own show on MSNBC here in a couple weeks, and it's like, well yeah, she's a lesbian. But that's not what the hokey pokey is all about, y'know? It's her intellect and insight and wit that make her the compelling show host that she is. But we have to, on some level, laud or understand or appreciate the fact that she's the first out lesbian to be in that position, and yeah, you know, that's pretty damn cool.

I'm getting ready to watch Barack Obama accept the nomination for the presidency, and as much as I wish our country was at a post-race-divisional* level, we so very much are not. Exhibit one: Obama is the first black man to ~~stand up~~ be held up to accept a major party's nomination for the presidency. So let's acknowledge and appreciate the fact that he's the first black guy to be in that position, and yeah, you know, that's pretty damn cool.

So like I was saying, in a reasonable, compassionate society, you wouldn't expect to see the headline "Gay person does X" for most values of X. But we don't necessarily live in a reasonable, compassionate society just yet. I live in a state that's supposed to be full of fruits and nuts, and we still deal with shit like this.

You can't tell, but I just took a break to watch Barack Obama's nomination acceptance speech. I'm so stunned by it I don't even care to comment, beyond this: In 2004, I said that in his speech, Barack Obama served notice he would be the first black President of the United States. Today, in his speech, Barack Obama just served notice he will be the next President of the United States. I'm contributing a modest amount to his campaign as a result of the not-exactly-what-I-wanted-to-hear but anything but platitudinal (all right, amazing) speech. I'm also contributing the same amount to the campaign to defeat Prop 8. I hope you'll consider doing the same within your means.

We may not have the reasonable, compassionate society I dream of, but we can get there, with the groundwork established by pioneers past like Washington, Lincoln, Anthony, Dr. King, and of course Del Martin. And more and more we will realize the benefits as a society, of unsuspecting, everyday, regular people who sometimes manage to do extraordinary things and obliterate a tacit barrier like Rosa Parks, Matt Mitcham, or (I guess even) Rachel Maddow. And as we look to extraordinary leaders of all shapes and sized, races and creeds, in an increasingly diverse array which represents the true American Way, I feel only more and more confident. We'll get there, and we'll start by defeating Prop. 8. We're going to have a woman or a black man as chief executive or first officer of this country. And we will reap the benefits from now into the future every time someone achieves a pinnacle that today we would say "the first whatever". By then, "whatever" won't even be in the headline and the whole of society can rejoice.

---------------

* - I now live in Alameda County, CA, and the societal integration here is just breathtaking. It does me better than eating Wheaties in the morning, seriously.

Marriage and Fucking: 'It's a union between man and woman'

2008-08-18T19:00:00.000-07:00

Given that the blog has changed digs, it's worth pointing out this is my first time writing about marriage. I'm fascinated not by, e.g., personal connection to the issue, but because it's such an interesting point of public policy. Regardless of what you think about the wall of separation between Church and State, it's undeniable that the issue sits in Humpty-Dumptian fashion atop said wall.

Additionally, it's the first time since the Constitution was written that there's active discussion of how much, as a society, we want to add to that document to exclude a group of people from access to rights and benefits afforded by law to the general populace. It's interesting to watch policymakers and pundits try to square arguments in favor of anti-marriage amendments with the patriotic reverence for the words of our forefathers, in crafting a work that has heretofore only been read with increasing inclusion as to whose rights are protected, and why.

And as our top politicians work their way toward the ultimate goal of being elected President of the United States of America, I found it fascinating that the nation moved the political debate to a new location, holding it up on that wall of separation between Church and State (to fashion a gallows, one wonders?) last night, with all major news networks pausing to give the bully pulpit of the unbiased press over to an evangelical preacher, grilling the candidates inside his evangelical church.

The 'debate' about marriage has gotten so convoluted and has so screwed up the context of what is, to me, a pretty simple, straightforward policy issue, that it's just stunning to read what the candidates said in this transcript. Here's John McCain. Sitting in a church with a pastor. In front of a few thousand evangelical Christians, a base he sorely needs to pander to* in order to win the election. And so you figure, surely he'll let loose how marriage in the Church is a religious construct and the government has no business legislating such things, and so on and so forth, Amen. And what does he do?

MCCAIN: A union -- a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. That's my definition of marriage.

He frames the argument in exactly such a way that God or a Covenant or religion or spirituality or eternal promises are completely omitted. According to John McCain, God has nothing to do with marriage. And if God has nothing to do with marriage, then there's no reason that the State shouldn't be saying "Hey, you know, we've realized that gay people are equal" and through whatever policy mechanism necessary, the State should be recognizing these as marriages if people want them to be marriages, so they can reap the benefits and legal rights and responsibilities as a married couple. If God isn't a part of what marriage is to you, then you don't really have a leg to stand on, from a policy perspective.

Or maybe even from a religious one. John McCain thinks marriage is 'a union between man and woman'.

No, 'a union between man and woman' is like John Edwards and That Filmmaker Lady screwing while his wife was home busy dying. That is 'a union between man and woman', John McCain. Not marriage.

And everyone applauded! Because He Was So Certain! Man and Woman! Man and Woman! And they loved it; ate his answer out of the palm of his hand like it was the Body of Christ in communion wafer form.

So what does Obama pull of of his flip flopping pansy ass liberal faggy hat?

"OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix. But --"

Sacred union. God's in the mix. How could anyone, from an evangelical perspective, not hear his answer and like it, um, a Father, Son and Holy Spirit more than what McCain said? It's just bizarre.

It's also a real accomplishment on the part of the people framing this debate, that they've gone from making the religious point -- which may in and of itself turn enough people off that policy initiatives could fail (think about it: How much of your neighbor's religion do you want in your government, even if you agree with it?) -- to making it a sanitary, general, hermetically sealed fact: "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman." Now, aside from the kids today who've grown up in teh gay, and a few people from freakshow areas like, well, here, how many people were actually raised with the understanding that marriage is anything but a union between a man and a woman? It's almost an a priori fact. Just like how black men don't marry white girls.

That twist, from making it a religious argument, to repackaging it in more widely-consumable form while still retaining the wink-and-nod to making sure religious organization doesn't lose a hook in the meaty flesh of public policy, has been the smartest change in the tactics since several anti-marriage initiatives failed in the last round of ballot referenda.

-----------------------

* - I was going to use a different phrase here, or use the ~~snarky strikethrough~~, but then I figured, nah, what the hell? You don't take your Presidential campaign into a huge evangelical church if you're not going to pander. Seriously.

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content

2008-08-12T21:15:00.000-07:00

These free enterprise idiots don't evidently care to understand jack about what they're actually supposed to be doing: "FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks."

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell is an alarmist shit-for-brains who illustrates such ignorance of what his job is in that statement that he should be summarily dismissed. Like a proctologist doing business at a lemonade stand, McDowell doesn't understand the difference between an internet service provider (whose monopolies the FCC has deemed to be within its purview) and an internet content provider. Like me. And every other damned blogger out there. And the idiots at businessandmedia.org. The FCC has not now nor has ever had any control over what we say or do.

This burning sack of crap rhetoric -- flames being fanned by Matt Drudge -- comes to a stop now.

The FCC ruled that Comcast doesn't have the right to interfere with the free flow of information selectively as they see fit. As an internet service provider. So in other words, if Comcast were to enforce some kind of fairness doctrine -- perhaps forcing people to visit the same number of liberal and conservative news sites -- the FCC would also come down on their asses. Hard.

The only reason the FCC can enforce a Fairness Doctrine on broadcast spectra is because those are public commons licensed to the owners of those stations *to operate in the public interest*. It actually says that in their license! Can you believe it?! And I know, you know, it's hard to believe that listening to Michael Savage tell parents of autistic kids that they're just making it up and that they should just be better parents -- it's hard to believe that's not in the public interest. But maybe it is. Who knows. That's not the point.

The point is that the airwaves on which bloviating broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh spew their cynical contempt for democracy belong to me and the hippies next door as much as to you or your pastor. Or even Rush Limbaugh. They're not there for megamillion-dollar media conglomerates to abuse. They're not there for Clear Channel to buy up all the stations in a market and fire everybody. They're there to be operated in the public interest. And it's pretty much impossible to say that constant Republican warhawk invective is in the public interest. So, hm. Maybe there's something to that after all....

Tires

2008-08-10T19:59:00.000-07:00

Isn't it going to be interesting to see where this whole presidential tire fiasco will go? Barack Obama says inflate your tires to reduce oil consumption; John McCain mocks him for this stance, then John McCain capitulates, saying that AAA and NASCAR both recognize proper tire inflation is an important component of maintaining the fuel economy of an automobile; then Barack Obama capitulates saying that ~~raping the earth~~ drilling for yet more oil is the answer to the US' energy consumption.

You have to admit, that's a helluva bipartisan compromise -- a major figure on the Democratic ticket and a major figure on the Republican ticket both admitting they were wrong and the other was right, on the same damn issue at the same damn time. Maybe Ahnuld's post-partisan politics is actually taking root.

What I really find interesting about that little policy rally is how inane the recanting of *both* claims are.

John McCain really does deserve all the flack he gets for this, and I hope there's no shortage of it. He chose to attack the most completely sensible, effortless, cost-free*, benefit-heavy suggestion anyone has ever made about fuel consumption and mocked it. He deserves to have this point raised time and time again "John McCain thinks there's nothing you should do to help the energy crunch. John McCain would just rather see the oil companies get all the profits they can. Not only is he in favor of public policy that supports ongoing record windfall profits for oil companies, he actively discouraged YOU from doing anything about it."

As a raging liberal, let me point out that my solutions to the energy crunch involve driving less, using less, massively funding public transit initiatives, and tying highway development (not maintenance) funding to be proportional with funding for mass transit development. To use a strict-parent metaphor, if you want dessert (more and wider highways for your car), then you better eat your broccoli (funding non-personal-automobile solutions so they become viable sooner rather than later, and so you grow tall and healthy).

But Barack Obama didn't suggest any of that hippie shit. He just pointed out a simple, empirical fact: Y'all check your air pressure today, and we can start saving as much oil daily as what the big-business corporate welfare whoring of the coast would do. And it can happen at no cost to you, and it can happen today, not decades from now. He didn't suggest that you take such a radical, liberal douchebag step as driving slower or not at all, taking the bus instead of driving to work, or offering to carpool with a coworker in the neighborhood. All he suggested was that people take advantage of an easy, free option with no impact to lifestyle at all and stop funding terrorist nations through their oil sales.

Jesus, what a screwball. Totally not ready to lead.

And then there's that whole bit about how he says we DO need to drill for oil in wildlife reserves. I would just like to know what the hell good he thinks that's going to do. Even if he's not all about supply-side economics, there cannot be any doubt that the current gas situation with $100+ fill-ups has put intense pressures on the market to allow us to avail ourselves of solutions that involve *using* less oil and involve getting off oil completely in many situations. "Fixing" this issue on the supply side removes some of these great new market incentives we have to not just get rid of our dependence on FOREIGN oil as McCain would have us do, but get rid of our dependence on oil entirely, in favor of better, cleaner, ideally renewable sources of energy.

I thought Barack Obama might want that, too, but given this latest round of talking to pundits and polls instead of real people, I'm not so sure.

African American English in the We-O

2008-08-09T13:39:00.000-07:00

The Oakland Tribune reports: "'Go on the porch and you risk ducking a bullet,' said Kayla Mendoza, 45. 'They don't care about no kids out playing down here. They want to kill a boy; they gone find a way to do it.'"

And I'd be a liar if I sat here and said I've long been fascinated by the socioeconomic implications of newspaper quotes reporting African-American English* (AAE) as it's actually spoken... But the fact that this is a story about the worst neighborhood in the We-O, which is not the nicest part of town to begin with, to put it nicely, really leads me to wonder what the policies of the Oakland Tribune are when it comes to AAE. Do they just transcribe word for word? Is a copy editor on hand who speaks AAE to check the accuracy of the quotes?

And maybe the most pressing issue of all -- do they quote anyone like that who's *not* black and probably not so well off (again, judging only by the neighborhood and nothing more). I have to wonder if this isn't an attempt to mark West Oakland and its residents as 'other' somehow, like they may not be of concern to -- or even a part of -- the city the rest of us live in.

------------------

* - I call it African American English, following Lisa Green, et al. Others have other names for it -- Ebonics (considered pejorative), Black English, Black English Vernacular, Black Vernacular English, African-American Vernacular English... All the same damn thing among those who write about it (even though there are surely regional / dialectal differences among them; there are even within the state of Indiana, so I'm sure it scopes regionally and nationally as well).

Favorite election sites

2008-07-29T21:09:00.000-07:00

Pollster.com has the Flash going on, and it's pretty flashy.

This is a fascinating, horribly oversimplified mechanism for tracking the Presidential election for 2008, but it's a really Flashy (pun), fun-to-play-with tool.

I do really appreciate, however, that it focuses more on the stupid Gallup national daily tracking poll which determines whether John McCain or Barack Obama would get elected homecoming king, but not much else, since popular votes don't matter.

And while Obama's numbers look good at the moment, let us not discount what happens if Michigan and / or Ohio flip -- Obama doesn't have enough to win. That's not to say McCain would win all the 'toss up' states and put together enough EVs to carry the thing, but right now he IS leading in more 'toss up' states than he's trailing in.

And then there's Indiana. There's nothing more to take out of the numbers there than "Gosh, that's really interesting". The poll numbers are all over the board, and the latest ones look pretty friendly to Obama -- but look at some of the weirdness in the polling methodologies.

The WTHR poll is no doubt Indianapolis heavy, and shows Obama well in the lead.

The Indiana Legislative Insight poll forced people to either choose Obama or McCain, and McCain cleaned up. However, as a counterpoint, check out the Zogby poll. That's the only poll on the chart that evidently allowed people to select a third-party candidate, and SEVEN percent of respondents chose Bob Barr. Ten percent more went 'Undecided', and I don't understand how, in Indiana, you can call many of those potential votes for Obama. They're either McCainers or they're stay-homers.

But Barr, 7%? My gosh. I'd really thought he wouldn't be much of an influence in the election until I saw that number. If Barr and Undecided are powerful enough this year to pull Indiana to basically a tie-with-statistical-noise... What does that portend for the other toss-up states who aren't traditionally *nearly* as partisan as Indiana?

Behold the Power: Janet Jackson's tit!

2008-07-21T20:00:00.000-07:00

After all the bitching and moaning and lamenting the day our great country lost its collective mind:

"A panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the FCC 'acted arbitrarily and capriciously' in issuing the fine for the fleeting image of nudity, which it noted lasted just over half a second. An estimated 90 million people watching the Super Bowl heard Justin Timberlake sing, 'Gonna have you naked by the end of this song,' as he reached for Jackson's bustier."

And then we see Janet Jackson's tit.

And the world is ablaze in a righteous wave of indignation sweeping the country from right coast to left, sea to shining sea! We must stop this outrage! We must never let down our vigilance! We must go to potential-tit-viewing level orange!

Thankfully, the article notes:

"Duke University law professor Stuart M. Benjamin, a telecommunications law expert, called the decision "a slap in face for the FCC.""

About damn time, for an organization whose sole job it seems to have been to keep tits off the airwaves and not bothering at all when it comes to regulating the economic mechanisms of a practical Crusade by major media, waging a hell-bent-on-self-destruction industry rampage of consolidation. No, that's not the problem. An editorial oligopoly of broadcast and print media in the United States? Nothing to sweat.

Because we all saw Janet Jackson's tit.

*sigh*

Evidently, according to the article, the Supreme Court is soon to take up a broadcast indecency case next term, and I can only tell you I await with bated breath the drivel that will no doubt come of that decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, whose opinions for the court have bordered on indecent in and of themselves, will be joined by two new missionary-style white guys who eat bread for lunch with water on the side for dipping, recent appointees of the Bush Administration. I can only hope the legacy of failed policy and utter futility where outright failure cannot be managed due to the few remaining enlightened souls who dare challenge status quo continues. After all, it's only the first flippin' bullet point in the Bill of Rights we're talking about here....

And all because we saw Janet Jackson's tit.

UPDATE: Will writing things about Janet Jackson's tit ever get old? I mean, really, post-9/11, is that not the single most defining day in our country's history? And spare me that 2006 election garbage -- what have the Democrats done for you lately that the Republicans wouldn't*?

* - Important reminder: A California Supreme Court stacked with Republican appointees says homos should be allowed to get married. So aside from going with the obvious gut reaction response 'kegstands', think very carefully before you answer.

Policy Prudence (or Regulating Reasonability)

2008-07-13T12:27:00.000-07:00

According to Bloomberg.com: Worldwide: "The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. will run a successor institution, IndyMac Federal Bank FSB, starting next week, the Office of Thrift Supervision said in an e-mail yesterday."

First off, bank runs and successorship! How awesome is this economy?? Food banks are running out of food and people can't get their cash out of the bank! It's like "It's A Wonderful Life" meets the Great Depression meets a global food crisis!

But what I really wanted to note was that evidently we HAVE an Office of Thrift Supervision. This is, ostensibly, an office that is an expert at not-spending itself into irrelevance and futility. It may seem counterintuitive, but do you suppose we could, say, fund them more and have them be thrifty more than just in their own budget? Maybe they could generate thrift analysis reports! Maybe they could issue reports on the best days of the week to shop at Goodwill (which we'll all need sooner or later; see earlier remarks about bank runs).

My next mission in life: To become Comptroller of Sensibility for the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Portland Stuff 3

2008-07-11T19:54:00.000-07:00

Portland is a smallish city (metro pop around 2 million) which is known for progressive values, lovely scenery, and a modest cost of living which rather underestimates its amenities. What is not frequently noted about living in Portland is that the cost of Roman letters are through the roof, and a full-on conservation effort is at hand, eliminating excess letters wherever possible.

This stands in marked contrast to California, a veritable orthographic horn 'o plenty, where street signs are marked in multiple languages, and the signs along the roadside indicating legal speeds read "MAXIMUM SPEED" as though the ambiguity of the upper- or lower-bound reading of the standard US "SPEED LIMIT" sign simply cannot stand. And besides, we have all these damn letters; we may as well use them.*

-----------------------

* -- Per Wikipedia: The actual reason the signs read "MAXIMUM SPEED" is that signs that read "SPEED LIMIT" in California are actually only guidelines with respect to the "Basic Speed Law" which says that the maximum speed for a vehicle on a road shall be the highest "reasonable and prudent" speed for traversing that road. That 'prima facie' traffic law provides some amount of wiggle room, as in most cases it is no doubt theoretically possible to argue the maximum "reasonable and prudent" speed for travel on a given road is indeed above the posted speed limit.

Due to the mandatory federal speed limit laws, however, California needs to also have in its arsenal a sign that indicates that the Basic Speed Law is not in effect. This indication is given by the "MAXIMUM SPEED" signs which state quite explicitly what the maximum speed on a road is, irrespective of any higher reasonable and prudent speed.**

** - You learn something every day, huh?

Portland stuff 2

2008-07-08T14:18:00.000-07:00

In Portland, they like to be progressive. After all, they live sort of on the left coast.

But as much of a bunch of hippie liberal douchebags as they like to think they are, you cannot flipping find a public recycling bin out on the street. Anywhere. Minus 2 points, Portland. Minus 2.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Portland things 1

2008-07-01T09:23:00.000-07:00

Totally got to kick it in Portland this weekend. It was cool to discover how close here and there is by air! A great trip for a weekend getaway to see friends, but I'm not sure I'd really plan a trip there were it not for the friends.

An awesome time was had by all! This is the first in a series of photobservations, a word I made up just now to describe this half-assed style of blogging.

In Portland, the soda cans come pre-shaken for you, so that they explode refreshingly all over you when you open them.

Down in the valley, the valley so low...

2008-06-18T22:46:00.000-07:00

It's undeniable -- part of the reason I love living here is because some of the finest grape-growing land in the world is an hour or so away by car, always there, always thriving, always ready to receive your reach-out-and-touch-it:

And if you promise not to hurt it, you can touch the merlot:

Yeah, the East Bay rocks. I'm 20 minutes by train from downtown San Francisco and I'm an hourish by car away from this, something that I find not necessarily unlike what you might call Heaven on Earth. Good times.

Freezing by the ocean

2008-06-15T18:26:00.001-07:00

While camping at Bodega Bay this weekend was a blast, I can say with absolute certainty that I have never worn so much clothing in June just in order to feel comfortable.

Update: That's the legendary CA-1 to the right and the Pacific Ocean to the left, in case it wasn't clear :)

On destroying marriage and families

2008-06-13T15:01:00.000-07:00

The gays are so damaging to traditional marriage that two California counties are stopping marriages altogether. Which is funny, because those homosexuals just want to, you know, get married, only now the conservative straights have decided to take their ball and go home. Nothing could be more rational than court case after court case arguing they need to uphold the sanctity of traditional marriage, and then when they lose, it's so sacred they just stop civil access to the institution altogether. Very good, my fellow Californians. Very good indeed.

On a related note, perhaps the people in Butte County have more to be worried about, legitimately, since they're not only sort of flamey -- they're actually on fire.

UPDATE: It's not unusual, being from the midwest, to hear about how liberal good ol' California is out here on the Left Coast and all that. And then I read newspaper stories like this, and I feel immediately at home. NoCal ain't no different than anywhere else; we just happen to also have San Francisco.

Due diligence

2008-06-09T19:14:00.001-07:00

I guess I have to give some begrudging props to AT&T for their thoroughness in providing me the account adjustment I was due -- even though I've stuck with them and am on a new contract so really the sending-me-a-check business is kind of crazy to begin with.

Let alone for two fat pennies:

They spent $0.42 to mail me a check for $0.02. Very nice. Now if only the insurance company would pay out with the same vim and vigor!

My neighborhood rocks

2008-06-07T12:17:00.000-07:00

Here's what I found tucked in the door when I got home from work the other day:

I realize it's probably not clear enough to read, so allow me....

LET'S CLEAN THE HOUSE FOR OBAMA!

Join us on Saturday, June 14 for a SPECIAL garage sale benefiting the one and only OBAMA CAMPAIGN! The Rockridge area will be united as we come together for this great cause... it is time for us to be united!

Who: You and Your Fellow Neighbors
What: A Garage sale that will help organize our future for the better!
Where: Desmond St. and Coronado Ave (and all over Oakland and Berkeley)
When: June 14, 2008 9:30 - 1:00
Why: Because our country is in desperate need of a housecleaning!
How: Simply clutter bust your house and have a garage sale and donate the funds to the Obama campaign.

Not only some real neighborhood activism, but one with a wry sense of humor, no less. Very nicely done!

National Donut Day

2008-06-06T10:57:00.001-07:00

Where's yours??

Kindness is Kontagious

2008-05-29T11:23:00.000-07:00

Aside from being one of my major, major pet peeves (using 'k' in English to represent the 'hard C' [k] sound as though alliteration actually requires the same orthographic character), the title of this post is empirically true.

One recent day, on the way into work, a series of people each held the door open for the person following behind. Seriously, three or four people did this in front of me, each checking behind them to see if they should hold the door a little longer. Without even thinking about it, I did the same, and actually contemplated how long it was appropriate to wait for the lady who was quite far behind me -- until she waved me on in.

It's funny how just the act of seeing someone doing something incredibly trivial but considered to be polite causes so many others to modify their behavior in the same way.

tobedeus

Hey you, shithead "pro-life" hypocrite!

NPR reminds us of the cost of not getting hitched

Republicans find drowning man, proclaim him savior, give him water (just in case he's thirsty)

A little partisanship cures all your budget woes...

Baby snail

Bringing American freedom to Iraq

Conservatives love teabagging

Indiana preparing for Obama's gun ban

Senior Seating

Phelps smokes weed, destroys conservative narrative

On medical bills and health insurance, part II

Rock Concert

On medical bills and health insurance, Part I

Charitable giving in tough times

Merry Christmas to All

Kindness is contagious (just please don't spell 'contagious' with a k).

Nightlife in the DTO

Coleman's Teeth Remain In Narrow Lead

Just as a reminder

More on Prop 8

When will my tax dollars start buying *me* wine?

Election Reflection

Election Selection Suggestion Projection

In defense of Sarah Palin

Urban sightings: Tumbleweave

The basement

Delicious!

Burying the lede

Toaster

Major disasters and miserable failures

You're damn well right we can.

Marriage and Fucking: 'It's a union between man and woman'

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content

Tires

African American English in the We-O

Favorite election sites

Behold the Power: Janet Jackson's tit!

Policy Prudence (or Regulating Reasonability)

Portland Stuff 3

Portland stuff 2

Portland things 1

Down in the valley, the valley so low...

Freezing by the ocean

On destroying marriage and families

Due diligence

My neighborhood rocks

National Donut Day

Kindness is Kontagious

When will my tax dollars start buying me wine?