Friday, June 23, 2006 :::
 

spewn forth by Wallace at 7:27 PM :::

 

Better watch out for that killer heat wave!

spewn forth by Wallace at 5:06 PM :::


Friday, June 16, 2006 :::
 

CRYPTO-GRAM

June 15, 2006

by Bruce Schneier
Founder and CTO
Counterpane Internet Security, Inc.
schneier@counterpane.com
http://www.schneier.com
http://www.counterpane.com


A free monthly newsletter providing summaries, analyses, insights, and
commentaries on security: computer and otherwise.

For back issues, or to subscribe, visit
.

You can read this issue on the web at
. These same essays
appear in the "Schneier on Security" blog:
. An RSS feed is available.


** *** ***** ******* *********** *************

In this issue:
The Value of Privacy
Movie-Plot Threat Contest Winner
Crypto-Gram Reprints
Diebold Doesn't Understand the Security Threat
News
Hacking Computers Over USB
The Doghouse: KRYPTO 2.0
Counterpane News
Aligning Interest with Capability
Comments from Readers


** *** ***** ******* *********** *************

The Value of Privacy



Last month, revelation of yet another NSA surveillance effort against
the American people rekindled the privacy debate. Those in favor of
these programs have trotted out the same rhetorical question we hear
every time privacy advocates oppose ID checks, video cameras, massive
databases, data mining, and other wholesale surveillance measures: "If
you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no
cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's
wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do
something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these
-- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy
is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right,
and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and
respect.

Two proverbs say it best: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who
watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he
famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of
the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him
hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest
-- or just blackmail -- him with. Privacy is important because without
it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to
marketers, and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be
at the time.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing
nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not
deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for
reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the
privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn
them. Privacy is a basic human need.

A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to
the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call
out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility
of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own
home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be
inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted
criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic
to the concept of liberty.

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat
of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own
uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes,
constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future --
patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by
whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and
innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is
observable and recordable.

How many of us have paused during conversations in the past
four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on?
Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail
or instant message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe
the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly,
momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then
we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and
our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us.
This was life in the former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our
personal, private lives.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy."
The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises
under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic
authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security
without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police
surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why
we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

A version of this essay originally appeared on Wired.com.
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70886-0.html

spewn forth by Wallace at 2:42 PM :::


Tuesday, June 13, 2006 :::
 

Hang in there, you rabid kittens out there.

spewn forth by Wallace at 11:39 PM :::


Wednesday, May 31, 2006 :::
 

spewn forth by Wallace at 6:11 PM :::


Wednesday, May 24, 2006 :::
 

New Marijuana Study Suggests FDA Statement Wrong

May 24 2006
Maia Szalavitz
No elevated risk for lung cancer even for heavy pot smokers

When the Institute of Medicine wrote its 1999 report on the medical research on marijuana, it seemed to use the fact that the drug was smoked as a kind of “get out” clause, in what appeared to be an attempt to avoid appearing to fully endorse medical marijuana.

Although it did debunk fears about marijuana as a “gateway drug” and the idea that it is highly addictive and noted that marijuana held promise in the treatment of a number of conditions, the group’s report said that because “of the health risks associated with smoking, smoked marijuana should generally not be recommended for long term use.”

Even though the Institute of Medicine is the organization specifically delegated by Congress to find the best answers to scientific controversies, the FDA recently ignored this report and numerous other studies with similar findings and claimed in a press release – without any supporting evidence – that smoked marijuana has no legitimate medical use.

Both groups, as well as the drug czar’s office, are likely to want to resort to drugs themselves when they see the latest data presented by UCLA researcher Donald Tashkin. At a meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society last year, Tashkin presented early results of a large case-control study exploring the link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. He found no connection. Now, he’s presented his latest resultsat the American Thoracic Society. While the study found that people who smoked two packs a day of cigarettes had a twenty-fold higher risk for lung cancer, even the heaviest marijuana users had no elevated risk of lung cancer.

STATS will be interested to see how widely this study is covered in the media, which tend to focus generally on studies that find connections between drugs and disease while ignoring those that don’t find correlations. And this tendency is magnified when the drugs in question are illegal, of course.

CancerConsultants.com News Article

Smoking Marijuana Does Not Increase Risk of Lung or Head and Neck Cancers

According to results recently presented at the 2006 American Thoracic Society Annual Meeting, smoking marijuana, even in large quantities, does not increase the risk of lung or head and neck cancers.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S. Smoking tobacco cigarettes is the most well-known cause of lung cancer.

The incidence of head and neck cancer is also known to be increased among tobacco smokers. Since lung cancer and head and neck cancers have suboptimal long-term survival rates, researchers continue to evaluate ways to reduce the risks of developing these cancers or prevent their development altogether.

Smoking marijuana or “joints” has worried researchers about the potential of increasing risks of developing lung and/or head and neck cancers since it leaves four-times the amount of tar in the lungs as tobacco cigarettes. Furthermore, marijuana smokers tend to inhale large quantities of smoke into their lungs.

Researchers from the University of California in Los Angeles and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor recently conducted a study to evaluate the potential relationship between marijuana use and the development of cancer.

This study included 611 individuals with lung cancer, 601 individuals with head and neck cancer, and 1,040 individuals who did not have cancer. People in the study were aged between 18 and 59 years, and several variables were evaluated between all groups of patients.

• Individuals with a history of smoking marijuana did not have an increased risk of lung or head and neck cancers.


• Even individuals who smoked marijuana from several years to several decades, including those who have smoked more than 22,000 joints with in their lifetime, did not have an increased risk of lung or head and neck cancers compared to individuals who did not smoke marijuana.


• There were no differences in cancer rates among individuals who smoked fewer or larger amounts of marijuana.

The researchers concluded that smoking marijuana, even large amounts over extended periods of time, does not increase the risk of head and neck or lung cancers. However, the researchers stated that "it's never a good idea to take anything into your lungs, including marijuana smoke."

Reference: Tashkin D, et al. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. Proceedings from the 2006 annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society. Presented May 23, 2006.

Here's a direct link to the abstract, although you have to register to view it: http://www.abstracts2view.com/ats06/view.php?nu=ATS06L_987, or read below:
[8:15 am] Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study, [Publication Page: A777]

D.P. Tashkin, M.D., Z.-F. Zhang, M.D., Ph, S. Greenland, Dr.P.H., W. Cozen, D.O., T.M. Mack, M.D., H. Morgenstern, Ph.D., Los Angeles, CA, Ann Arbor, MI

Introduction: Marijuana (MJ) smoke contains several known carcinogens, & heavy habitual use can produce accelerated malignant change in lung explants & pre-malignant histopathologic & molecular changes in bronchial biopsies. While results of experimental animal and epidemiologic studies have been mixed, most epidemiologic studies have been limited by small numbers of heavy long-term MJ users and by sources of possible bias.
Methods: We therefore assessed possible associations between MJ use - including heavy long-term use - and the risk of lung cancer (ca) in middle-aged adults living in Los Angeles County (LAC). A population-based case-control study was conducted by identifying ca cases, ages 18-59, through rapid ascertainment by the LAC Cancer Surveillance Program. Controls were matched to cases on age, gender & neighborhood. Personal interviews were completed in 611 lung ca cases & 1040 controls. Data were collected on lifetime use of MJ (measured in joint-yrs [j-yrs]; 1 j-yr=365 joints), tobacco (tob), alcohol & other drugs, SES, diet, occupation & family hx of ca. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of MJ use on lung ca risk, adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education & cumulative tob smoking & alcohol use.
Results:

MJ use, j-yrs	# cases	# controls	OR* (95% C.I.)	p value
0	302	474	1	-
>0-<1	162	313	.66 (.49-.90)	0.008
1-<10	64	127	.71 (.46-.90)	0.083
10-<30	30	544	.60 (.32-1.1)	0.077
30-<60	24	23	.94 (.46-1.9)	0.086
>=60	28	35	.56 (.29-1.1)	0.073

*Adjusted for age, sex, race, educational level & tobacco

Conclusion: We did not observe a positive association of MJ use - even heavy long-term use - with lung ca, controlling for tob smoking and other potential confounders.

Session Info: [**] Mini-Symposium, [D12] LUNG CANCER: 2006
Session Time: 8:15 AM - 11:00 AM
Presentation Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Presentation Time: 8:15 AM
Room: Marriott Hall 1-2 (Marriott Pavilion), San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina
If I read that correctly, the heaviest smokers smoked over 60 joints per day every day for their entire lives? Damn, they must have a large Rastafarian community in Los Angeles.

spewn forth by Wallace at 6:25 PM :::


Tuesday, May 23, 2006 :::
 

spewn forth by Wallace at 1:07 PM :::


Sunday, May 21, 2006 :::
 

Despite Pledge, Taxes Increase for Teenagers - New York Times

The $69 billion tax cut bill that President Bush signed this week tripled tax rates for teenagers with college savings funds, despite Mr. Bush's 1999 pledge to veto any tax increase. (...)

spewn forth by Wallace at 2:45 AM :::


Wednesday, May 10, 2006 :::
 

Here's a good short-form blog for people that find popular culture annoying. Could that be anyone reading this website? It's part of The Onion's AV Club. I don't know if that gives it any special consideration, but I find it pretty funny and there are usually pretty good links and amusing side comments. I'm guessing if you don't watch TV or somehow hear about celebrities you won't know what she's making fun of, but Amelie knows what Amelie hates.

The Hater | The A.V. Club




And while we're talking about The Onion, I thought I'd point out this especially appropriate article, entitled "I'm Doing My Inconsequential Part For The Environment."

A short taste:
As human beings continue to wreak havoc on the ecosystem, with seemingly no awareness of the long-term effects of our shortsighted actions, we seriously jeopardize the fragile balance of life on this big blue marble we call Spaceship Earth. Now is the time to take steps toward creating a cleaner environment, however insignificant and useless those steps may be. That's why I'm doing my own laughably inconsequential part to end pollution, limit damage to our precious ecosystem, and preserve what remains of our planet's biodiversity for future generations.

Every day, without fail, I meticulously organize my recyclables into five distinct categories, thereby subtracting an eyedropper's worth of garbage from the countless tons of waste that ferment in our landfills. It only takes a few extra minutes, but just think of the impact it totally lacks. I also refuse to use anything but "Earth-friendly" paper products—some of which contain up to 10 percent recycled materials. For me, it's worth shouldering the extra cost, but, unfortunately, only a scant few of us bother to do the same. (...)

spewn forth by Wallace at 12:34 AM :::


Monday, May 08, 2006 :::
 

Jen sent me off to Boise this week with a big piece of banana bread and a kiss. What a gal.

spewn forth by Wallace at 10:25 AM :::


Saturday, May 06, 2006 :::
 

Cellphone Picture Dump!

Belle & Sebastian concert:







Hand-crank train:



Ceramic Wall art at Saturday market:



Japanese Garden:



Tree in Boise:



Mt. Hood from the air:







Ho Patrol toy outside GI Joes:

spewn forth by Wallace at 7:26 PM :::

 

Been a while since I posted. Been working a lot in Boise. My folks were here last weekend and we all had a good time. My dad is looking at retiring in the NorthWest now, so he definitely enjoyed his time up here.

Here's a picture of that birthing Britney Spears statue, and the backside that you don't normally see in the press.

spewn forth by Wallace at 6:54 PM :::


Monday, April 24, 2006 :::
 

Thought this was pretty interesting. Compare prices of gas across the country. How does your neck of the woods stack up?

USA National Gas Temperature Map

spewn forth by Wallace at 5:20 AM :::


Friday, April 21, 2006 :::
 

A car in Boise.

spewn forth by Wallace at 2:22 PM :::


Monday, April 17, 2006 :::
 

Damn these 4am airport runs. I only got about an hour of sleep last night, tossing and turning. Might be a long week ahead.
-WP

spewn forth by Wallace at 4:55 AM :::


Monday, April 10, 2006 :::
 

Basically, Seymour Hersh is the most credible source on the internal workings of the government. Many of his sources are insiders trying to stop Bush from starting WWIII. This is mandatory reading.

The New Yorker: THE IRAN PLANS by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

spewn forth by Wallace at 4:20 PM :::


Thursday, April 06, 2006 :::
 

Impeach the MotherFucker Already!!!

No president should ever knowingly disclose the identity of undercover agents. Bush makes me want to vomit.


Libby Claimed Bush Authorized Plamegate Leak - April 6, 2006

spewn forth by Wallace at 9:19 AM :::


Tuesday, April 04, 2006 :::
 

Breaking News!!!

Jen was just offered and she accepted the job of Planning Department Training Manager at her office. She's been whipping that place into shape and training people in the department for some time now, but they have finally made it official. Of course, the job was almost guaranteed since they approached her over a month ago to write the job description for the position that had never existed before now. In any case, that's great news and catapults her to the manager level which I'm hoping includes more perks and fat raise. In three years that Jen has worked there, I think she's been promoted 4 or 5 times now.

I'm really proud of Jen. She is a superstar and I'm glad I locked down our marriage early. Pretty soon she'll be running the whole company.

So if you know her email send her a message of congratulations. I will post a sneakemail address that will go straight to her, here : "kwmvbk902 [@] sneakemail [.] com". Of course, if that address starts getting lots of spam it will be deactivated, so no guarantees the address will last longer than a month or so.

spewn forth by Wallace at 2:24 PM :::


Monday, April 03, 2006 :::
 

For those of you who feel like you can never measure up to the pictures of celebrities and models in the magazines, check out this site. The link below is to a photographer's website, where he shows how he takes photographs of real people and air brushes them to make them beautiful enough for print. It's really unbelievable how different people look in real life compared to their picture in a magazine. (hold mouse over the picture to see the original, click the thumbnails at right for more examples)

Greg Apodaca's Digital Portfolio

For more proof of the reality distortion magazines project, look no further than the recent Jennifer Aniston cover of Vanity Fair magazine. Jennifer Aniston is 37. Is it necessary she look 15 in these pictures from the September 2005 issue? How many people, do you think, wondered how Aniston can remain so youthful-looking at her age? Do you think this would cause them to devalue themselves a little? Maybe just enough to be more susceptible to the cosmetic ads on the adjoining pages?

More

Dr. Phil has a great line that goes something like "Don't try to compare your inner truth with other people's public persona." Everyone has a projection of their personality that they display when they are in public, and that projection is often significantly different from how they feel about themselves when alone at home. It's an unfair comparison and leads to feelings of negative self-worth. In my unprofessional opinion, it's also a leading cause of eating disorders in young women.

So I ask, does youth sell magazines or sell cosmetics? We already know that magazines and print journalism are only vehicles to put advertising before our eyeballs (much like television is the filler to keep you watching between commercials). My guess is that magazine editors and art directors would say "People want to see youth and beauty -- that is what sells magazines." Perhaps this is true, especially for men, but when those images project an unattainable idealized false reality juxtaposed with advertising for products encouraging you to try to attain the impossible, it is no wonder we are willing to try this new product or that new treatment. The advertisers are happy, and advertisers pay for magazine production (75% of magazine content is advertising, the maximum allowable by law to qualify for reduced postage).

What keeps the advertisers happy keeps the magazine running which keeps the editors happy. Is it in the reader's best interest? Not really, but that's capitalism. Just don't feel bad if you look 35 when you're really 35. Respect yourself enough and that confidence will look a lot more attractive than the cosmetics they want you to buy.

spewn forth by Wallace at 11:04 AM :::


Saturday, April 01, 2006 :::
 

The size of a baby's head before slicing, battering and frying. Rose's deli kicks ass.

spewn forth by Wallace at 2:16 PM :::

 

Cinnamon roll french toast, baby!

spewn forth by Wallace at 2:08 PM :::


Thursday, March 30, 2006 :::
 

Two article from CNN about dieting and portion size. Mostly they are a puff piece, but the third link to the portion size quiz was surprising. It's crazy how many calories are stuffing down their faces nowadays.

Dieting war strategy: Give in to win, Allowing an occasional indulgence can make going without easier

A nation's eating habits, Convenience is king in American diet

Quiz: PORTIONS, PAST AND PRESENT

spewn forth by Wallace at 5:10 PM :::

 

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Insulating Bush (03/30/2006)


It is soooo time to IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKER ALREADY!!!!

spewn forth by Wallace at 1:10 PM :::


Wednesday, March 29, 2006 :::
 

ITMFA

spewn forth by Wallace at 5:33 PM :::


Tuesday, March 28, 2006 :::
 

Time to catch up...

The Belle and Sebastian concert Thursday was freaking awesome. It was at the Roseland Theater in Portland, which is a pretty small place. It is set up with an upstairs area with seating and a downstairs main floor. The downstairs is all ages and the upstairs is 21+. So we headed upstairs after we got inside and found that it was pretty empty. In fact, we were able to get front row seats very very close to the stage. Really, I think they were the best seats in the house.

The show was awesome. They played lots of great older stuff and a few songs from their new album. Surprisingly and thankfully the concert was almost completely different from the DC show I linked to last week. They spent lots of time talking to the audience, and were constantly switching out instruments. I counted 9 guitars, plus a xylophone, trumpet, multiple keyboards (including one that you had to blow into to make sound), a DJ, etc. They played every song I wanted to hear, including Lazy Line Painter Jane during the encore. It seemed like they really enjoyed playing what the people were requesting, and even brought up a girl to sing the LLPJ song because Stuart Murdoch said he couldn't remember the words. And that girl could really sing and had great stage presence.

So the concert was great on Thursday and the Friday we packed up and headed to the coast. Our hotel was a little different than what we expected from the pictures online, but overall it was exactly what we were looking for. About a block from the beach with an ocean view, a kitchen, giant fireplace and separate bedroom, it had all that we needed and more. Friday we arrived around 4pm with plenty of daylight to walk along the beach and skip some rocks into the water, then cooked ourselves dinner at the cabin. I built a raging fire with the wood a coworker was nice enough to give us and we made s'mores and hung out together. It was a lot of fun and very relaxing.

Saturday we got up early enough to go on an awesome hike up to Falcon Cape. The weather was gorgeous, sunny and cool, and the trail was not very muddy at all. At one point we had to walk along a fallen tree that cut the trail and I took a picture of Jen standing next to a fallen tree that was wider than she is tall. The end of the hike brought us to a cliff overlooking the beach and rocky shoreline 200 feet over the ocean. It was really cool up there watching the surfers and listening to the waves, so we decided to eat our picnic lunch we brought with us. We hiked back the same way we came, overall about 4 hours of hiking was plenty to get my knees and legs feeling well exercised.

That night we ate out at a restaurant in Cannon Beach. It was a little European-style restaurant that is attached to one of the hotels we were considering. The food was phenomenal, and we learned they have a sister restaurant in Portland's Pearl district so we are definitely going to check that place out. They had this amazing french-fry (pomme frites) basket as an appetizer that I'm still dreaming about. They fried up hole garlic cloves with the potatoes and seasoned with rosemary and other spices. They were so freaking good! For entrees Jen had the polenta with eggplant and I had a stuffed porkchop. We were both really happy but decided to skip dessert so we could go back to the cabin and make more s'mores. We do love the s'mores, and calculated that they really aren't that bad for you, only about 110 calories each. After the hike we had definitely earned them.

Sunday we packed up and headed the city of Seaside. Can you imagine where it is? If you guessed on the coast, you are correct. Our cabin had super fresh salt water taffy in a little bowl and I cleaned those off, but I needed more. We heard the good taffy was in Seaside so we went to their boardwalk to just walk around and scope out the taffy situation. Well, it turns out there are at least 4 taffy places on the 1/4 mile boardwalk, so we went with the one that claims they are the only candy shoppe that makes their taffy in the store. I am happy.

Well that's about it. Sunday we were home with plenty of time to get the house cleaned up and relax a little more before work started on Monday. We both had a great, relaxing getaway that we both really needed. We were both incredulous that the weather stayed sunny and warm all weekend, only to start raining again as we drove back to Portland. You never know if (when) it's going to rain during the Oregon Spring season, but we hit unbelievably great weather and enjoyed every minute of it.

Good times...

spewn forth by Wallace at 2:46 PM :::

 

The Blog | Davis Sweet: Marijuana Morals | The Huffington Post

From the AP story, "Medical Marijuana Issue Returns to Court:"

"There is no fundamental right to distribute, cultivate or possess marijuana," Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Quinlivan, the government's lead medical marijuana attorney, wrote to the appeals court.

Good point, Mr. Quinlivan. But surely you'd concede that there is also no fundamental right to confiscate or destroy marijuana, or to imprison those who possess marijuana.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

What the anti-marijuana moralists refuse to accept is that there is zero moral component to medical marijuana -- or marijuana, period. Just as with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, misuse and abuse and general stupidity can turn a beneficial or morally neutral instrument into a bad thing. With marijuana, though, the "bad" end doesn't kill anybody, not even the abuser, unless you combine it with a car.

There is no legitimate foundation for this government's war on marijuana (like some other wars I could mention). It's based exclusively on imaginary benefits, which make horrible, overreaching laws.

(...)

It's instructive to imagine the prohibitionists' benefit proposition. It's not easy, because the rationale is essentially "because we've done it that way for sixty years." But here goes: by lumping marijuana in with the world's most harmful substances under the law, we can keep a certain number of people from trying it. By keeping those people from trying marijuana, we keep them from possibly enjoying it, which could lead to someone driving a car while impaired, which could lead to someone being hurt or killed. Not a bad argument, really, since nobody wants to see impaired folks driving.

But replace "marijuana" in that argument with any of the following: alcohol, Ambien, energy drinks, religious ecstasy, driving-while-getting-a-blowjob. Precisely the same risks; unconscionably different prohibitions and penalties. You could sure smash up a herd of schoolchildren if you tried to operate a moving vehicle while a good friend bobbed in your lap, but lap-bobbing on its own isn't a crime. In most states, anyway. Driving while impaired, including being impaired by lust, is already and justifiably illegal, not to mention breathtakingly stupid. Where is the societal benefit in jailing, robbing, and, for our medicine-using friends, torturing and killing people who aren't driving while impaired? It doesn't exist.

(...)

Folks, the threat of a pothead nation simply doesn't exist. It is a pipe dream. There is no consequence of responsible marijuana use that justifies any of this malicious, violent, immoral prohibition. We need leaders who will assert that the government can't take away selected freedoms simply because they're fun or interesting or they keep Hostess's Twinkie division in business.

spewn forth by Wallace at 1:06 PM :::


Thursday, March 23, 2006 :::
 

This weekend should be very nice for Jen and I. Tonight is the Belle and Sebastian concert in Portland. Should be a lot of fun. If you want to hear what you're missing, NPR posted a recording of B&S concert at the 9:30 Club in Washington DC. It sounded like a pretty good show. I'm really looking forward to tonight. (alternate link)

Friday Jen and I are taking the day off work and going to the Oregon coast for the weekend. We'll be staying at a nice little hotel just south of Cannon Beach, at Arch Cape. Basically this weekend is a de-stress and getaway weekend so we can relax and recouperate from our hectic lives. Jen is under a lot of pressure at work lately and she really needs a de-stressing weekend. We're planning on doing some hiking and chilling out by the fireplace.

Otherwise not much else going on. Shout at yalls laters next week.

spewn forth by Wallace at 1:52 PM :::


Tuesday, March 21, 2006 :::
 

God Damnit!!!! I hate this administration so much it makes my blood boil. Screw these assholes. Why can't the Democrats put up at least one decent candidate to defeat the Republicans? ARGHH!!!!

Philadelphia Inquirer | 03/21/2006 | IRS plans to allow preparers to sell data

The IRS is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable privacy of federal income-tax returns. If it succeeds, accountants and other tax-return preparers will be able to sell information from individual returns - or even entire returns - to marketers and data brokers.

The change is raising alarm among consumer and privacy-rights advocates. It was included in a set of proposed rules that the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Dec. 8 Federal Register, where the official notice labeled them "not a significant regulatory action."

(...)

spewn forth by Wallace at 2:26 PM :::


Sunday, March 19, 2006 :::
 

This is a pretty good article. It should have been more publicized during the last election, but better late than never. One prone to conspiracy could ask why it was released on a Saturday, the slowest news day by far.

Some even say The Associated Press fears the right-wing Republicans so much they censor themselves. I think those people are completely right! But if I disagreed, would you have recognized the straw man argument?

Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches - Yahoo! News



By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer Sat Mar 18, 12:52 PM ET

WASHINGTON - "Some look at the challenges in
Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day,"
President Bush said recently.
ADVERTISEMENT

Another time he said, "Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."

"There are some really decent people," the president said earlier this year, "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people."

Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.

When the president starts a sentence with "some say" or offers up what "some in Washington" believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.

The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.

He typically then says he "strongly disagrees" — conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.

Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed "critics," is just as problematic.

Because the "some" often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, "'some' suggests a number much larger than is actually out there," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as "a bizarre kind of double talk" that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.

"It's such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people," Fields said. "All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What's striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff."

Bush has caricatured the other side for years, trying to tilt legislative debates in his favor or score election-season points with voters.

Not long after taking office in 2001, Bush pushed for a new education testing law and began portraying skeptics as opposed to holding schools accountable.

The chief opposition, however, had nothing to do with the merits of measuring performance, but rather the cost and intrusiveness of the proposal.

Campaigning for Republican candidates in the 2002 midterm elections, the president sought to use the congressional debate over a new
Homeland Security Department against Democrats.

He told at least two audiences that some senators opposing him were "not interested in the security of the American people." In reality, Democrats balked not at creating the department, which Bush himself first opposed, but at letting agency workers go without the usual civil service protections.

Running for re-election against Sen.
John Kerry in 2004, Bush frequently used some version of this line to paint his Democratic opponent as weaker in the fight against terrorism: "My opponent and others believe this matter is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement."

The assertion was called a mischaracterization of Kerry's views even by a Republican, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona.

Straw men have made more frequent appearances in recent months, often on national security — once Bush's strong suit with the public but at the center of some of his difficulties today. Under fire for a domestic eavesdropping program, a ports-management deal and the rising violence in Iraq, Bush now sees his approval ratings hovering around the lowest of his presidency.

Said Jamieson, "You would expect people to do that as they feel more threatened."

Last fall, the rhetorical tool became popular with Bush when the debate heated up over when troops would return from Iraq. "Some say perhaps we ought to just pull out of Iraq," he told GOP supporters in October, echoing similar lines from other speeches. "That is foolhardy policy."

Yet even the speediest plan, as advocated by only a few Democrats, suggested not an immediate drawdown, but one over six months. Most Democrats were not even arguing for a specific troop withdrawal timetable.

Recently defending his decision to allow the National Security Agency to monitor without subpoenas the international communications of Americans suspected of terrorist ties, Bush has suggested that those who question the program underestimate the terrorist threat.

"There's some in America who say, 'Well, this can't be true there are still people willing to attack,'" Bush said during a January visit to the NSA.

The president has relied on straw men, too, on the topics of taxes and trade, issues he hopes will work against Democrats in this fall's congressional elections.

Usually without targeting Democrats specifically, Bush has suggested they are big-spenders who want to raise taxes, because most oppose extending some of his earlier tax cuts, and protectionists who do not want to open global markets to American goods, when most oppose free-trade deals that lack protections for labor and the environment.

"Some people believe the answer to this problem is to wall off our economy from the world," he said this month in India, talking about the migration of U.S. jobs overseas. "I strongly disagree."

spewn forth by Wallace at 7:09 PM :::

 

Pictures from a while ago...



Balloon in the trash the day after Valentines...



Mt. Hood from the air on the way to Boise.



Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Adams (I think) from the air on the way to Boise.



Mannequin with an extremely long arm.



Pictures from Schuyler's birthday. We went to Beppe and Gianni's Italian restaurant in Eugene, and it was fun. Schuyler's parents picked up the tab, Thanks!

spewn forth by Wallace at 3:01 PM :::


Friday, March 17, 2006 :::
 

I just hate BushCo and their PR machine. Why do the networks eat it up so much?

TIME.com: On Scene: How Operation Swarmer Fizzled -- Page 1

spewn forth by Wallace at 2:52 PM :::


Wednesday, March 08, 2006 :::
 

I haven't had much to talk about lately so I haven't been posting. Mostly I've been working very long hours in Boise, and on the weekends hanging out with Jen and getting stuff done around the house.

But here's a synopsis of what's been going on. I'm going to be back in Portland next week, unexpectedly. I was planning on returning the week after next but tool time issues have forced me to push up my return by a week. Unfortunately, that means that I'm going to be home when Jen is travelling for work. She will be going to Nicaragua on a factory inspection. So we'll be missing each other which sucks pretty bad. I really miss her when I'm in Boise.

The 23rd is the Belle and Sebastian show in Portland. I'm flying back early for the show, and then we're going to take off Friday and go away for the weekend. We will probably do a B&B or something on the coast, but it has yet to be decided. I have to buy my car next week, get insurance, and do our taxes. If you're wondering, I'm buying the company car Taurus, and plan to resell it when the '06 year end models go on sale. Should be a fun week for me running around trying to get stuff done.

My parents are going to come visit us at the end of April. It will be their first time to Oregon. I think they'll like it. Hopefully it won't rain but you never can tell.

I guess that's about it.

spewn forth by Wallace at 12:13 PM :::


Monday, February 20, 2006 :::
 

Milk Gone Wild // Watch the Commercial That Was Too Hot for the Super Bowl

Download the Uncensored clip for the whole commercial in .mov. Pretty gross at the end, but still funny.

spewn forth by Wallace at 1:46 AM :::


Sunday, February 19, 2006 :::
 

Flying to San Jose for the SPIE Microlithography conference this week. Updating will be sparse to non existant.

spewn forth by Wallace at 10:41 AM :::


Friday, February 17, 2006 :::
 

I meant to post this earlier, but last weekend Jen and I went to a super-secret Nike sample sale. I say that it was super secret but actually there was a really long line. We went early in the morning and waited about 90 minutes before we had to leave, then ended up coming back again at the end of the day. People were still carrying giant trash bags full of clothes and shoes out of the warehouse.

Here's a picture of Jen buying a big sack of shoes for $20 each.




And here's a lady with a bag of shoes almost as big as she is.




Jen and I were joking that there were so many Indians and Asians there (this is Intel country after all) that most of the shoes would end up back on a boat to where they were manufactured. Probably they ended up on eBay.

spewn forth by Wallace at 12:54 AM :::


Thursday, February 16, 2006 :::
 

Colder than a witch's tit this morning, I think around 20 F. Damn that's cold!

spewn forth by Wallace at 9:06 AM :::


Wednesday, February 15, 2006 :::
 

Salon.com | Patriot Act games

If Democrats won't stand up to an executive who doesn't worry about trampling the rights of innocent Americans, what do we stand for?

By Sen. Russ Feingold

Feb. 15, 2006 | WASHINGTON -- It seemed like a watershed moment for the Democratic Party. At the end of 2005, Democrats, along with a small band of Republicans, stopped a bad Patriot Act reauthorization bill in its tracks. For me, it was gratifying to have so many in my party openly share -- and act on -- the concerns I had voiced about the Patriot Act back in 2001. But, more importantly, Democrats had decided to stand up to the White House's scare tactics and stand for protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans. Finally, Democrats were refusing to be intimidated by suggestions that protecting our freedoms is inconsistent with fighting terrorism aggressively. This moment was long overdue.

Unfortunately, it was also short-lived. Just two months later, a number of Democrats have agreed to support a reauthorization of the Patriot Act that is basically the same as the deal we rejected in December, and doesn't solve any of the significant problems with the law that Democrats claimed they were concerned about.

Under this deal, the government can still access the library or medical records of someone with no connection to terrorism. After four years of public outcry over Section 215 of the Patriot Act -- the so-called library records provision -- and after the Senate unanimously passed an amendment fixing this provision in July, apparently a number of my colleagues have decided that government fishing expeditions aren't such a big deal.

Almost as bad, the deal fails to fix the "gag order" that prevents businesses from telling anyone that they've received a Section 215 order for records. The deal keeps the gag rule in place for a year; after that, the recipient can challenge the gag order in court but under rules that make it almost impossible to win.

The deal also fails to address the concerns Democrats expressed about news reports of growing use of National Security Letters, which don't even require a judge's approval, to obtain records of electronic communications, credit reports, and financial records. And it leaves in place the much criticized "sneak and peek" provision, which allows the government to secretly search Americans' homes in criminal cases that have nothing to do with terrorism or espionage.

These are some of the provisions of the Patriot Act that pose the biggest threats to our freedoms, yet some Democrats are happily supporting a deal that leaves them firmly in place. That's hardly a victory for our party, or for the effort to protect our liberties as we fight terrorism.

It took a long time for Democrats to step up and challenge the administration's baseless assertions that the Patriot Act could not be changed without threatening the security of the American people. When we finally did so, when we decided to make the case that we can fight terrorism and protect our American principles at the same time, it looked like Democrats were finally ready to stand on principle and offer strong leadership.

Instead, too many Democrats have folded, and momentum for critical changes to the Patriot Act to protect our freedoms has been squandered. Some Democrats may be breathing sighs of relief that the president can't use this issue to paint them as "soft" on terrorism. But we're not doing the party or the country any favors by refusing to challenge an administration that views our freedoms as collateral damage in the war on terrorism. If Democrats aren't going to stand up to an executive who disdains the other branches of government and doesn't worry about trampling on the rights of innocent Americans, what do we stand for?

Expect Democrats and some Republicans to insist that they have won some significant improvements to the Patriot Act. Don't believe it. The few minor concessions they got from the White House are a fig leaf to disguise a complete about-face. Thanks to this deal, the White House will be emboldened in its fear-mongering, Democrats will be perceived as timid, and the American people will still face the prospect of government intrusion into their private affairs. Some deal.

spewn forth by Wallace at 12:48 PM :::


Tuesday, February 14, 2006 :::
 

Last night I did really well at the gym. Rowed 7 km in a little less than 40 minutes. I really got into it last night and was pushing myself very hard. Felt very good, and this morning weighed in at 189.5, so probably sweated out a half pound or so of water.

It's a shame I can't really work out when I'm on the road. Usually the hotels I stay in have gyms, albeit crappy little ones with one treadmill and one bike, but the problem is the work hours. I'm almost always getting home at 9 or 10 at night and need to cook and go to sleep. Woe is me, my life is so hard. I think I'll try to do some isometrics like pushups and crunches. We'll see if I have the energy.

spewn forth by Wallace at 10:07 AM :::

 

From Physnews. Thought this was interesting...

STOCK MARKET CRITICALITY

In the months before and after a major stock market crash, price fluctuations follow patterns similar to those seen in natural phenomena such as heartbeats and earthquakes, physicists find in a study to appear in Physical Review Letters. A University of Tokyo team studied the Standard & Poor's S&P 500 index, focusing on small deviations from long-term index trends. Such up-and-down blips in stock prices are usually "Gaussian," or "normally" random, at least when measured over sufficiently long time scales---for example, for more than one day. That means that fluctuations are likely to be small, while larger fluctuations are less likely, their probabilities following a bell curve. But when the team looked at 2-month periods surrounding major crashes such as the Black Monday event of October 19, 1987, they saw a different story: Fluctuations of all magnitudes were equally probable. As a consequence, the graph of index fluctuations looked statistically similar if plotted over different time scales, anywhere between time scales of 4 minutes and two weeks. Such behavior is called critical in analogy with a ferromagnetic metal at the "critical temperature," when regions form where the metal's atoms arrange their spins in the same direction, and these regions look similar at different levels of magnification. This self-similarity is also seen in the time intervals between heartbeats, or between earthquakes. Mathematically, however, the stock market case differs in that the probabilities do not change with the size of the event, while in other cases of non-critical self-similarity, the probabilities usually follow a so-called power law. It is unclear what individual trading decisions lead to criticality in the stock market, co-author Zbigniew Struzik says, although he and the team at the University of Tokyo are working on finding explanations. Also unclear is whether the findings could one day lead to an early-warning system to predict crashes, and if such a system would precipitate a crash -- or create one artificially -- by inducing panic. "It could compensate for or neutralize the crashes, or make them worse," Struzik says. (Kiyono et al., Physical Review
Letters, 17 February)

spewn forth by Wallace at 9:27 AM :::


Monday, February 13, 2006 :::
 

Had a good weekend with the wife. Did a bunch of errands, hung out and shot some pool, cleaned the house, had [redacted], and did a chocolate and wine tasting at the New Season's Market (think Whole Foods). All in all a very good weekend, and it stayed sunny throughout.

In an unrelated aside, I weighed in at 190.0 lbs this morning. Since my scale only does half pound increments, I am somewhere between 189.7 and 190.3 pounds. That's pretty good for me, since usually I weight around 192 - 193. The lowest I've weighed in the near recent is 189.5 so I'm pretty consistantly around my low weight band. Ideally I'd like to weigh around 185 - 187. So I'm almost there. More so I really just need to keep at the rowing (erg machine) and crunches to tone up my midsection. Otherwise I feel like I'm in pretty good shape. Mostly I attribute this to Jen knowing how to plan healthy meals for the week and keeping us organized. I think most calories are unintentionally consumed when there isn't time to make dinner so you get fast food or eat out. Eating at home is so much healthier, and I almost always eat lunch at home.

Anyway, the clouds are back today but it should be sunny later in the week. It is now that time of year when the sun and clouds battle it out for dominance, with both sides often overtaking the other for several-day stretches at a time. Eventually the sun will win more and more and the clouds will recede to pleasant memories. The trees are budding already.

spewn forth by Wallace at 9:26 AM :::


Friday, February 10, 2006 :::
 

The Onion interviews Belle and Sebastian:

Stuart Murdoch of Belle And Sebastian | The A.V. Club

Also, Salon.com has a wrap-up of reviews of the new B&S album:

Belle and Sebastian, "The Life Pursuit"

Once the cult band of choice for bookish intellectuals and other nervous souls, Belle and Sebastian have gradually reinvented and beefed up their sound to appeal to a whole new world of pop fans, not least international music critics. They've come a long way over the course of six albums, as the Guardian (three stars out of five) points out: "The idea of Belle and Sebastian decamping to LA to work with a big-name producer would once have seemed as improbable as Belle and Sebastian driving a Harley-Davidson around a hotel suite filled with empty Jack Daniel's bottles and coked-out nymphettes." Still, says Pitchfork (rating 8.5), it's been a fruitful trip: "Belle and Sebastian seem to have found new life in their evolution from shy bedsit savants to showy pop adepts."

"The Life Pursuit" isn't Belle and Sebastian's first foray into the world of high-gloss hit-making; 2003's "Dear Catastrophe Waitress" featured maverick pop schlock guru Trevor Horn pushing the buttons. But for Spin, some momentum has in fact been lost with the switch to California-based rock producer Tony Hoffer following "Dear Catastrophe Waitress": "After that hearty, rewarding belly flop, 'The Life Pursuit' is a series of cautious toe-dips," says the magazine, before going on to mix aquatic metaphors, "Hoffer preserves Horn's professional sheen but not his swinging charm, leaving us with all bathwater and no baby."

NME (nine out of 10), by contrast, sees Belle and Sebastian ever more at ease after their emigration from the fragile, acoustic fringes: "There's a real confidence here, not quite a strut, but definitely a swagger," the magazine states, before observing that the band is "still perverse, still twee, but strong enough to take on the bullies." Slant Magazine (four and a half stars out of five) continues the fighting talk, describing "Belle and Sebastian competing in a whole new weight class" with an enhanced sound. And how will the bookish intellectuals reconcile themselves to this cultivation of a new fan base? Not to worry, says Pitchfork: "'The Life Pursuit' is a baroque pop cathedral, welcoming the faithful and newly converted alike."

Finally, I know it's AOL, but you can listen to the full CDs of lots of albums here, including the new B&S. I didn't know about this but it will be nice to use at work.

spewn forth by Wallace at 11:15 AM :::


Thursday, February 09, 2006 :::
 

Once again Edge.org comes up with some interesting analysis. In this case, they did some brain imaging of people watching the Super Blows ads for the first time. Seems like a lot of people respond to the ads unconsciously much differently than when asked what they thought.

This is your brain on advertising!

WHO REALLY WON THE SUPER BOWL? By Marco Iacoboni

spewn forth by Wallace at 2:12 PM :::


Tuesday, February 07, 2006 :::
 

Today's my birfday.

spewn forth by Wallace at 9:25 AM :::


Friday, February 03, 2006 :::
 

I was cleaning up some pictures on my digicam card, and ran across a few I thought I'd share from around Portland.

This is Jen looking cute standing inside a giant head statue. This is outside the Ballpark.


Here's a picture of Mt. Hood from the Japanese Gardens. The Japanese Gardens are situated at the top of a hill (right above the Rose Gardens) that overlooks downtown and the mountain. I had to color correct this one so it might look a little funky.



This is a little map of the different mountains from a certain spot along a hiking trail near the Zoo. It was a nice view, but you'll have to imagine it.

spewn forth by Wallace at 7:42 PM :::

 

I unexpectedly had to change my plans last night and flew back to Portland a day early. It turns out that I'm not going to get the tool time I need in Boise, so I'm going to stay in Portland for a couple of weeks instead of wasting my time there. This came from the customer and when he said to postpone my work by a couple of weeks I was annoyed but also happy I'd get to be at home for a while.

Once I heard that I'd be postponed, I changed my flight and rushed back to my hotel to check out and run to the airport. The flight I was supposed to be on left at 8PM, but I got there early enough to be put on the standby list for the 6PM flight. Unfortunately, there were 16 people in front of me on the standby list.

So there is some problem with the plane for the 6PM flight and it was delayed almost 2 hours. It also turns out that my 8PM flight is the same plane as the 6PM flight, so my return flight was now bumped back to 11:30PM. Suck!

I had given up hope of getting on the early flight when they called my name. I was settled down in the computer desk area and had to literally jump up, stuff my mouse, power cords, random papers and crap into my pockets and run over to the gate. The plane was so delayed they called over the loudspeaker "If you're not here by the time I'm done leaving this message we're giving your seat away!" I ran up with my jacket dragging behind me, cords everywhere, my laptop and papers in my hand, and yelled "I'm here! I'm here!" as I ran down the terminal. I finally got on, I think was the last person to get standby on the flight. There were a ton of people standing at the gate waiting for standby and when they saw me run up there was a collective "Aww...." They were so disappointed but I was able to get on.

Suckers!!

So I got back to Portland at the normal time last night and was able to get home and in bed before my orginal flight would even have landed. Jen was very happy that I came home a day early, and we both lamented that we had to go to work today. In any case, things worked out for the best and I'm here for a little while.

I'll be in San Jose in a few weeks, and then back to Boise after that. Travelling....

spewn forth by Wallace at 12:05 PM :::

 

I don't normally find myself in line with Pat Buchanan, but this analysis of the President is pretty dead on.

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Bush Is Running Out of Alibis

(...)

Having plunged us into an unnecessary war, Bush now confronts the real possibility of strategic defeat and a failed presidency. His victory in Iraq, like the wars of Wilson and FDR, has turned to ashes in our mouths. And like Truman's war in Korea and Kennedy's war in Vietnam, Bush's war has left America divided and her people regretting he ever led us in. But unlike the world wars, Korea and Vietnam, Bush cannot claim the enemy attacked us and we had no choice. Iraq is Bush's war. Isolationists had nothing to do with it. To a man and woman, they opposed it.

Now, with an army bogged down in Afghanistan and another slowly exiting Iraq, and no end in sight to either, Bush seeks to counter critics who warned him not to go in by associating them with the demonized and supposedly discredited patriots of the America First movement of 1940-41. His assault is not only non-credible, it borders on the desperate and pathetic.

(...)

Bush has come to believe that the absence of democracy is the cause of terror and democracy its cure. But the cause of terror in the Middle East is the perception there that those nations are held in colonial captivity by Americans and their puppet regimes, and that the only way to expel both is to use tactics that have succeeded from Algeria in 1962 to Anbar province in 2005.

(...)

If America is angry over what interventionism and free trade have wrought, George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crime.

It is George W. Bush who is running out of alibis.

spewn forth by Wallace at 11:46 AM :::


Thursday, February 02, 2006 :::
 

A Quiet Band Worth Fighting Loudly About Makes Some More Noise - New York Times

Here's a nice little article about the band Belle and Sebastian. I didn't know they had a new album coming out, but it makes sense since they are doing the American tour circuit. I have, I think, all of their albums including the Storytelling soundtrack (of which I think only 1 or 2 songs actually made it into the movie). Jen and I will be seeing them in Portland. I encourage everyone to check them out.

Here's a list of tour dates.

spewn forth by Wallace at 9:22 AM :::


Monday, January 30, 2006 :::
 

Regan turned me on to a female vocalist/guitarist Chan Marshal, otherwise known as Cat Power. To me, her crooning, longing, mournful singing sometimes strikes the right chord and sometimes leaves me wanting to quickly change the track. Really, it depends on my mood. It's either great or crap.

However, they reviewed her new album, the Greatest, tonight on NPR (Fresh Air?). The review was really good, and so were the clips they played. This time, Cat Power travels to Memphis to record with many of the greats in soul music. The collaboration seems to really work for her. I'm probably going to get this album, unless someone tells me they already have it. Let me know, yo.

spewn forth by Wallace at 8:57 PM :::

 

I'm back in my hotel now. The weekends are too short. I must not be the only person that realizes this. How come that's not our national motto? "In god we trust?" More like "In god we subvert the will of many for the purposes of the few."

Anyway, this weekend Jen and I worked on her resume and just kind of chilled around the house. It was raining balls outside and there really wasn't any reason to go out so we didn't. Jen made banana bread, and I love her for it.

Boise was lame again today. I took the later flight, thank god, that got me in around 2pm. Come to find out that the machines I'm supposed to be working on are unavailable, again, and I'm annoyed.

In more positive news, I'm enjoying this new beer I found called Ton~a. [That's a n with a tilde, or a nino as I ignorantly like to call it.] It's a lager-style from Nicaragua, and tastes very similar to the green bottle Dos XX. Since green bottle Dos XX is my favorite beer, and it is hardly to be found outside of Texas and southern California, this will have to do. I found it in Albertson's of all places. Go figure...

Here's a picture of the box. All the bottles were emptied by the time this picture was taken.

spewn forth by Wallace at 8:44 PM :::


Thursday, January 26, 2006 :::
 

Well, I guess I got my wish. Waking up this morning I found myself in quite a snow storm. In fact, it's still snowing outside at 2pm. Ah, the gray clouds overhead, they make me smile.

spewn forth by Wallace at 1:44 PM :::