Insignifica

I rarely blog about work, but the following was too funny to pass up. After our power outage (which lasted all of 3 seconds), the elevators had some problems. Just now, the following came over the loudspeaker:

"Any associates using the elevators do so at their own risk"

Glad I've been using the stairs...

tuesday in March

Another Tuesday, but this one feels like Monday. I took yesterday off not feeling well (my second sick day in the year I've been working here...not too bad), so now I have a shorter week to look forward to. Not too shabby.

The more often I look, the more people named Michael Doss that I find out there. Are you a Michael Doss? Do you know one? I'd eventually like to use michaeldoss.com (which points here) as a gathering place for people with my name - there are enough of us to make it interesting, but not so many as to make it overwhelming. Let me know.

Plans are in the works for this year's Birthday Mikestravaganza, though we're doing it a little differently this year. Since we don't have access to a large hall for the dinner party, we'll just be having a party at my place, with food and drinks provided by me. Instead of gifts, I'll again be asking attendees to donate either to the charity of their choice or one I highlight, in the amount they would have spent for the gift. If you're interested in attending, and I know you, let me know. I'll also be setting up a way for those interested to donate from here.

We lost power in my office today for a few seconds. I can't imagine there's anywhere else in the world that loses their power as rarely as southern California. It really is a weird event for it to happen here.

I'm looking to expand my Friendster and Orkut networks, mostly for research purposes. If you're a member, let me know so I can add you. Likewise if you need an Orkut account.

Dumb spam

I got the following spam email today, and it made me laugh:

Good afternoon! Today the mistake in Internet Explorer has been found. If you use with what or payments through the Internet please immediately download updating. Updating can be found on a site devoted to safety of payments ...[site name deleted].

busy weekend

Another Friday, another busy weekend coming up.

Not that I'm complaining, of course, the "busy" is fun stuff, but it's still busy. A quick rundown:

digital camera

I'm considering purchasing the Olympus C-4000 Digital Camera. Does anyone out there have this camera, or can they suggest others in the $250 range? This one seems like a great deal. I'm interested in your opinions.

UPDATE: Too late. I went to Costco and got it tonight. So far, it's awesome.

flexitarians

There's a term, apparently, for the people I used to just call "bad vegetarians" - "flexitarians". There are good and bad points about the growing flexitarian movement:

The good: More vegetarian choices in my stores and restaurants, greater knowledge by food preparers of ingredients, more acceptance.

The bad: Millions of people all over the world who still think "vegetarian" means "someone who doesn't always eat big chunks of meat".

I can't go to a lot of restaurants and eat with any sort of assurance that there's no meat in my food - big chunks are typically easy to avoid (except for the occasional accident), but sauces, dressings, mixes and flavorings are often made with stock, gelatin, tallow or fats. And the more flexitarians (who call themselves vegetarian) there are, the more the population honestly thinks these things are vegetarian. I've been served chicken and fish because it's "not meat". It doesn't help matters that many people just think it's polite to give you the answer they think you want when you ask about ingredients.

I'm going to be militant about this: If you eat animal parts, you're not a vegetarian. You may be a flexitarian, and that's fine. But stay away from the vegetarian label, you're making it tough for the rest of us to enjoy a meal outside the home.

--

The article makes a lot of interesting points, even with the emotional response it gave me. Vegetarian items are much easier to find than before (I'd suspect this is even moreso in the south and midwest). Restaurants like Burger King and McDonalds aren't putting veggie patties on the menu for people like me, but for "healthy" eaters (though you must wonder why you're going to those restaurants if you're striving for "healthy"). Some interesting points, though:

Though flexitarian headcounts are imprecise, Stahler estimates roughly 30 percent to 40 percent of the population at least occasionally seeks out vegetarian meals.

That means that 60% - 70% of the population NEVER seeks out vegetarian meals. Perhaps it's because I grew up in California, but I can't imagine eating meat with every meal. Even before I became vegetarian, I'd often go all day without meat, having some with dinner. Breakfast was vegetarian 75% of the time, and lunch about 50% of the time. Amazing.

party recap

Quite a crazy weekend here - an expiriment in partying almost boiled over into a sloppy mess, but was contained before too much happened. Chris, Marek and I decided early last month that we were overdue for a blowout, college-style party. of the type we were too busy to attend while actually in college. After some confusion about dates, we decided on March 8th to hold it on March 13th.

Invitations were sent out but turnout was low, so Chris put the word out on his network, and friends of friends, plus their friends, as well as someone those people met once at a bar all decided to show up. This happened slowly at first; the first non-group people didn't turn out until 90 minutes after the party started, but in the hour after that more and more people kept coming, and a generally good time was had by all. It never turned ugly, although the police were called at one point (it was after midnight and our party was beginning to mingle with the party across the courtyard), and one guy had to be kicked out. And while it was certainly a blowout, it was almost too out of control, and my hosting instinct made it more work than a solid, good time.

Lessons were learned, and almost everyone was very well behaved. Once beer bottles and cans were cleared out the mess was minimal. Nothing was broken, nothing went missing, and everyone seemed very grateful for having somewhere to spend a Saturday night. Next time, though, I'm hoping it's more people I know and fewer strangers, and while the level of fun was fine, I think a more personal party would be much more enjoyed by all.

pi day 2004

It's pi day! (March 14th = 3 14). Take a minute and think about your favorite math teacher at 1:59 today (3 14 159). You can also send a pi day card, sing pi day songs, teach pi day to your students, see a web page dedicated to pi, and last but not least, check out "Another Slice Of Pi". Check out also Wikepedia's entry on Pi, and enjoy a slice today!

peta

News Item: Chicken-Themed Trading Cards Peeve Parents

Say what you will about PETA, but I think they're a riot. They have a message to spread, and while they go about it idiotically a lot of the time, they're not hurting anyone. The best part of the article is the quote from Jon Olinger, school board Secretary: "It's a professional terrorist organization as far as I'm concerned."

As part of my campaign to stop absurd uses of the term "terrorist", I invite readers to call Jon Olinger (or at least leave him a message) at 260-467-1000, the number for the Fort Wayne Community Schools, of which he's the secretary. Let him know that you regardless of your feelings about PETA, to call them a terrorist organization serves only to belittle the memory of those really affected by terrorism.

In the sidebar, I had a link to a story about the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act", which congress recently passed that makes most lawsuits against the food industry illegal if it's in order to blame obesity on the company.

In theory, it sounds good. Me being fat is my responsibility, and the law seems to allow exceptions for the companies presenting false claims. Still, I have a big problem with concept of passing legislation making it illegal to file a lawsuit against a specific type of business.

The job of the courts is to weigh evidence and pass judgement. Many lawsuits are thrown out in pre-trial hearings; that's how the system should work. But to legislate that I can't even bring suit, as a citizen against a business, seems wrong to me. How does this benefit the people, when the courts were already doing their job? Frivolous lawsuits are already thrown out, and if it's not thrown out, the court system should be available to justly rule on the case. I contend that this law is little more than a "free pass" for the food industry.

super malvo?

Am I the only person who, when seeing the headiline "Sniper Malvo sentenced to life without parole" sees "Super Mario" instead?

activist judges

There's been a lot of discussion lately, especially among more conservative pundits, of "activist judges", those that "make" law rather than just "interpret" it. It sounds like a powerful argument; the judicial branch, who we all were taught in civics classes only "interprets" law, shouldn't be making rulings letting gay people get married or taking "Under God" out of the pledge of allegiance. If that's going to happen, it should be the "will of the people" and all the polls show that the people want the pledge how it was, and no one wants to threaten the institution of marriage. Who are these judges, anyway?

The argument, however, falls apart when one actually read their civics book, or better yet keeps up with the news from more than one "fair and balanced" news source. People seem to remember an oversimplification: the legislative branch creates the law, the executive branch enforces the law, and the judicial branch interprets the law.

Sounds good, and it's a good way to remember how the system works, in general. But it's by no means a comprehensive breakdown of the checks and balances system. The president can create laws through executive order. Congress can allow or deny funding that makes enforcement of certain laws possible or impossible. And judges, through their rulings, routinely make old laws obsolete, find them in conflict with existing law, and interpret how they're enforced. All of these things are legal and part of the system, and for the judicial branch, it's always been the main aspect of the job. I'll rephrase that: the actions of "activist" judges in recent cases are exactly in line with expected judicial action.

In his State of the Union address in January of 2004, President Bush said the following:

"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

Bush didn't mention the opinion given in the case, which showed why gays must be given equal rights, nor did he mention that three of the four judges who ruled in the majority were appointed by republicans. Instead, he called them "activists" with "arbitrary will", convincing most who heard the address that the decision was simply something the judges wanted done, and they did it. He ignored the extensive opinion, the Massachusetts laws in place to stop discrimination, and the long chain of events that lead to the case getting to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Though as president he knows the role and expected actions of the various state and national courts, he ignored them and set out a political agenda, based not on rule of law, but on personal and special interest groups demands.

Bush is not alone is his use of the term or in ignoring the court's opinions. Very few arguments against gay marriage focus on the decision, but instead of the "illegal activities" of mayors and county clerks, the evils of homosexuality, or the need to defend marriage against unknown perils. Like in the pledge case, emotion and politics come before the actual court opinion, which presents the reasoning behind the ruling logically. But the ruling isn't debated, it's the results, and the judges just take the blame.

So what really is an "activist" judge? It's interesting to note that the "new laws" passed by activist judges largely affect minority groups: homosexuals in the recent Massachusetts case and non-Christians in the pledge case. Activist judges of the past included those who ruled for segregation and universal suffrage. What it appears to come down to, then, is that activist judges are those who make civil rights rulings against the wishes of conservatives in power. The label is given by conservatives to invoke an emotional response in the masses, that the judges are purposely out to change the way of life of "Good" American people. What it comes down to, though, is that the "activist" judges I've described seem only to be fair.

Further reading can be found here. I welcome your comments, opinion, and linking.

1024

When I posted entry number 1000 (10^3) last month, Chris reminded me that I'd soon been posting entry number 1024, or 2^10. Here it is. I won't repeat what I did for number 1000, but I just thought it was worth pointing out.

Wil's finished posting his "Lying in Odessa" series about his first non-housegame poker match. Awesome read. They're in reverse order on his site, so check out parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Speaking of poker, we're playing this weekend at my house. If I know you and you'd like in on the tournament, let me know.

Today's election day in California and several other states, so make sure you get out there and do your American duty.