Dan Among Den

« January 2005 | Main | March 2005 »

February 28, 2005

Voting Reform: Democrats take the lead

I rarely applaud Congressional Democrats these days, but I must make an exception today for Senators Boxer and Clinton. Their Count Every Vote Act of 2005 seems to be largely based on common sense ideas for electronic voting and voting reform.

From Boxer's press release:

The Count Every Vote Act of 2005 will provide a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast in electronic voting machines and ensures access to voter verification for all citizens, including language minority voters, illiterate voters and voters with disabilities. The bill mandates that this ballot be the official ballot for purposes of a recount. The bill sets a uniform standard for provisional ballots so that every qualified voter will know their votes are treated equally, and requires the Federal Election Assistance Commission to issue standards that ensure uniform access to voting machines and trained election personnel in every community. The bill also improves security measures for electronic voting machines.

I'm for that stuff 100% (at least on the reading of the summary), and I've suggested some of it before. The rest sounds pretty good, too:

To encourage more citizens to exercise their right to vote, the Count Every Vote Act designates Election Day a federal holiday and requires early voting in each state. The bill also enacts "no-excuse" absentee balloting, enacts fair and uniform voter registration and identification, and requires states to allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day. It also requires the Election Assistance Commission to work with states to reduce wait times for voters at polling places. In addition, the legislation restores voting rights for felons who have repaid their debt to society.

I'm a big fan of the required early voting. Still, a few things have me holding back here, though not by much:

• I'm worried about requiring Election Day voter registration. Just as there were questions about validating provisional ballots, I'm not sure how well we can verify someone's franchisement in the hussle and bussle of Election Day itself. I'd be more comfortable allowing it up to a few days beforehand. Still, I'd be open to this if it can be shown that it can be handled correctly.
• I've always been of mixed feelings on the voting rights of convicts. I balance outrage at the idea of murderers voting for scofflaws vs. the memory of this sweet old man at my childhood church who could not vote because he had been a heroin dealer in the 1940's. I'm mostly OK with this one, but before rendering my final opinion, I'd like to know how this applies during parole.
• I like the idea of Election Day being a federal holiday, though I'm also just a little cynical about it. I'd be happier if I knew that most private companies were going to embrace it as a holiday and not just the fed's. I say that because federal workers are a well-known Democratic voting block, and the cynic in me sees this partly as a way to increase turnout in that block. Still, it sets the right tone, that this day is not just your normal Tuesday.

So, while I might tweak a few things here and there, my initial impression here is very favorable. I think its passage would have been aided by a Republican co-sponsor (as there appears to be nothing overtly partisan here), but I suspect that the Democrats want to claim credit for this these good ideas. If so, then let them have it. The Republicans could have introduced this bill, but they didn't. You snooze, you lose.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

February 27, 2005

Out of the mouth of babes...

Mom had better know where it came from or Dad's in trouble.

Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 25, 2005

Friday Five: The Five Laws of Dan-otics

Today’s question comes from Tanya:

Due to a highly improbable circumstance, you have the power to create or destroy 5 of the laws where you live. This could be anything from changing a local ordinance to overturning case law to drafting new sections of your constitution. What do you change?

Well, it’s not quite King for a Day, but I’ll take it.

1. Big changes to the drug laws: This is really two laws in one. First, I’d legalize all of the illegal drugs, and I’d give research tax credits to the pharmaceutical industries on finding good uses for these potent molecules. In addition to finding a host of unexpected new therapies, I’d like to think they could create “safer” versions of these drugs that achieve most of the “fun” parts while mostly eliminating the dangerous or addictive parts. Basically, I want to turn drugs into alcohol, which while it still presents problems, is generally seen as socially acceptable. My only real regret here is in present society, criminals are frequently involved in drugs, and law enforcement can use the easily pliable drug-laws as leverage for gaining information. I’d hate to see them lose that edge, but I’d be willing to live with it.

   Second, all of those “all natural” products that get to bypass FDA review would have to have their claims vetted by FDA-approved clinical trials. I strongly suspect that most of that stuff is pure bunk, and I’d like to see them put in their place.

2. Big changes to the prostitution laws: My general feeling is that whatever goes on between consenting adults should be off-limits to government interference. Hence, I’d like to see prostitution legalized. The simple act of legalization would do a great deal to eliminate abusive pimps, since a pimp enforcing his dominance would quickly devolve into a clear-cut case of assault. There might need to be a little extra done on the pimp front, and I’d be willing to go for that. Now, on the flip-side, there is a health issue here, so prostitutes and bordellos should be licensed, complete with health inspections, etc. The licensing could be optional, but I think most customers would want the assurances that the license implies.
3. Big changes in marriage laws: I’d like to see government’s view of marriage to be redefined as a general partnership of more than one sentient, adult entity (as defined by laws that recognize such rights as voting, drinking, citizenship, legal protection, etc.) with rights governing property, taxes, and child guardianship. Basically, I’m in favor of legalizing gay marriage and polygamy. I’ve opined on this before.
4. Changes to the interpretation of the “establishment” clause of the First Amendment: The clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is commonly interpreted as “the government shall allow no sign of religion in public life.” Given that the authors were generally a fairly religious bunch, this is most clearly not their intention. Rather, they wanted to avoid the establishment of a federal church, supported by the government, which could outlaw or marginalize other religions. Now, the ACLU and its allies have taken the position that the mention of an unidentified God or references to the Ten Commandments or town hall nativity scenes are an implicit endorsement of the Judeo-Christian faith by the government. This, in my not so humble opinion, is ludicrous. These references to the Judeo-Christian faith are as ingrained into the cultural heritage of this nation as are the cries of “taxation without representation”, the Boston Tea Party, and Paul Revere’s ride. Acknowledging that heritage is a far cry from placing an extra burden on the unwashed heathen who deny the one true American Church.

   But... I’m willing to compromise on this one, just to keep folks happy. In such matters as the various town hall nativities or the Ten Commandments on the courthouse steps, I would suggest the notion of equal time, or rather, equal space. The sites for such monuments or displays will be leased to the highest bidder for an appropriate term. More than one site should be made available, preferably three or more. A panel will enforce that displays are sufficiently distinct to rule out three copies of the Ten Commandments. If fewer than three sites are available, then no display can have back-to-back leases.

   Initially, many parties would attempt to monopolize it. Some areas might end up with the Ten Commandments, a crucifix, and year-round nativity, while others would have a statue of Darwin, a Buddha, and a monument to the scientific method. Eventually, groups would grow tired of the ongoing lease fees and a mixed rotation would ensue, each unique to its community and representative of the community values. There would be plenty of scandal – “How dare they replace our crucifix with a Koran monument!” – but eventually it would settle down into an understanding. The priest would meet with the imam and say, “I think next year is your turn for the center spot, so we won’t be asking to renew the lease.” He might reply, “No, we’re saving up for a new statue, but I think the University’s biology department has something.” Instead of becoming a fight to keep religion out of the public eye, it would become a celebration of our diversity and our tolerance for others’ beliefs.

5. Changes to the status of Washington D.C.: While allowing D.C. to retain parts of its special status as the independent seat of our government, its residents will take part in federal and state elections as though they were residents of Virginia or Maryland, depending on which side of the Potomac they’re on. I’m sick and tired of listening to these guys whine about wanting statehood. I know their population is greater than North Dakota, but I’m not going to give a city the status of a state.
6. Changes to the laws of enumeration: There is no law number 6.
7. Changes to the interpretation of rights of free speech and press: Anyone who disagrees with me does so on penalty of death. What? I’ve already gone past five? Is it too late to reorder these?

Meme by Dan | Permalink | Comments (2)

February 24, 2005

So bad it stings...

An acquaintance of mine is rising in the world of SFWA, and one of his more recent projects was a sting operation played out on a vanity publisher. The publisher (PublishAmerica) claims that they are not a vanity publisher. Instead, they claim they are looking for “that one special author who is going to make our day.”

To test this, several SFWA authors put together a novel so astoundingly bad that it could suck the quality out of any library, a virtual black hole of bad writing.

It contains such gems as

She struggled to remember, to make her mind vomit forth the information she knew it had digested at some point.

Or...

He sat stonily and goggled explicitly and gaped impassively as if he were a fish precipitously extracted from its appropriately aqueous environment.

And such grammatical contortions as

Although her eyes opened, crinkling her short hair trigger. What could be she purred and soon they make such a minute observation?

Once completed, they sent it off to PublishAmerica for publication. It was immediately accepted.

Read more of the backstory and the aftermath once the sting was revealed.

Blog by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

February 21, 2005

That was a looooong render...

And here's what I look like afterwards:

Well, not really. Actually, it's just been a long time since I've done any rendering, but since I had the day off, I thought I'd play around with some of the extra tools in my rendering toolbox. This was mostly the result of some face morphing stuff, though I did spend a little time adding the hair and touching up the eyebrow texture. This essentially pure-render, i.e. the only postwork was to fix an error down around the shirt collar.

For comparison, this is the same model and essentially the same texture as I used in this previous side-by-side render.

As I've mentioned, I'm thinking about doing a comic strip using these rendering tools to generate my graphics for me. This guy is the prototype for one of my characters.

Render by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 18, 2005

Social Security, part 1.75

(I'm getting close to part 2, really I am.)

Adam points us to the Democrat's calculator of how badly Bush's private accounts will screw you. Alas, they're hiding their formulas, and even the assumptions they disclose seem dubious.

Here's some problems I have with their math:

• They predict market returns will be inflation + 3%. They claim that this is supported by such economists as Becker (Nobel prize winner), but I haven’t seen that figure on his blog. (Note also that Becker supports private accounts.) Also, that figure doesn’t jive with my observation of the numbers. Pulling from the government's CPI calculator, I see long term inflation (from 1950-2004) has been 3.8% while market returns (from 1950-2005, averaging S+P 500 w/ Dow Jones) have been more like 8%, meaning an edge of 4.2% over inflation, and that doesn’t include dividends, so it should really be a little higher. Also note that with lower taxes and tighter monetary policy from 1980-2005, it’s been 3.5% inflation and 9.9% returns, a 6.4% edge, again without including (admittedly low) dividend yields. Fiscal and monetary policies are more likely to continue in their current vein than return to pre-1980 standards, so I would expect someting closer to the latter numbers.
• It also puts the switch from wage indexing to price indexing into the mix, when it’s really a separate issue from private accounts, a.k.a. "privatization". They don’t list the source of their data for the predictions on price and wage increases, so I can't say how reliable or unreliable that data is, but it's what controls the initial drop in benefits that the private accounts must attempt to make up for.
• They state that your private account contributions are limited to $1000 per year until 2009 when they begin to slowly creep up. They list this as being part of “the president’s plan”, but I haven’t seen that anywhere. The only figure I’ve seen is 4% of your wages, but maybe I wasn’t paying attention. The $1000 limit would more typically imply a 1-2% contribution.

So, put it all together, and it means you start at a deficit (due to the switch from wages to prices), and they ensure that the private account will be too small (through limits and low growth) to make up the difference. With those assumptions, it appears to be mathematically assured that no set of inputs will improve the situation, but as you can see, I have my doubts about the reality of these assumptions.

I'm wondering if some economists are preparing their own (better documented) calculator right now.

Update==> As pointed out in the comments, you can look at the Social Security Administration's calculator for estimating your benefits under the current plan, and the Democrats' calculator is showing a higher "current plan" value by a significant margin. I ran a series of birthdates and salaries against both calculators, and the Democrat version overstates the current plan's benefit by 23% to 56%, with the higher discrepencies for the youngest workers.

Now, I'll be kind and not accuse the the Democrats of deliberate fraud in this case. Instead, I suspect that they chose a simplified formula which is giving the wrong answers. However, they are presenting them as facts to support the propping up of a crumbling system, and for that I accuse them of deliberately misleading the public.

Instead, if I'm to actually believe their "Bush plan" numbers, the Bush plan beats the current system, hands down. But of course, as I already said, I think their math on the Bush plan is suspect.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday Five: SF Body Swap

This week’s question comes from Rob:

I've been wondering about discontent lately and how it seems to be something fundamental in the human makeup, like lipstick or eyeshadow. So, to undermine the power of discontent I think we should be able to walk in someone else’s shoes, though bring your odor eaters if you're borrowing mine; hence, name five people you would swap your life with for a day.

Despite the question’s use of the word “swap”, I’m going to ignore what these folks would do with my life for the day. I’ll presume that most of them would take one look at my job, call in sick, and just say, “Hmmm, today’s a good to sleep in and watch TV.” Also, given that this is a classic SF plot, I’m going to stay with that genre. I suspect I'm taking this question in a totally unintended direction, but we can always blame that on Mark Hamill who wanted to be me today.

1. Whoever is currently fucking Claudia Christian. Heck... I’ll just be Claudia. That’ll be a long day naked in front of the mirror, maybe with a girlfriend. And a digital photographer. And one big, midnight email attachment to this humble blogger. [Side note to Claudia: I do recognize you as a talented actress, but you’ve run afoul of the SF-Babe curse. No matter what you do for the rest of your life, you’ll have SF geeks lusting after you, even when you’re seventy. Learn to appreciate it.]
2. William Shatner. I’d show up at Wil Wheaton’s house, unannounced and sans toupee, and do yard work all day. Mow the lawn, trim the hedges, weed the flowerbed, etc. “Must... polish... gnome!” Afterwards, I could hope that Wil would stop calling him William Fucking Shatner and settle for something a little kinder, like William Lawn-boy Shatner.
3. Bruce Boxleitner. He played John Sheridan on Babylon 5, and his real-world wife Melissa Gilbert (of “Little House on the Prairie” fame) had a one-episode guest appearance as his long-missing wife, Anna Sheridan. In that episode, I found one particular part of her performance so chilling that now the mere sight of her freaks me out a little. So, maybe a little aversion therapy or just seeing her as a person instead of an actress would help clear that up. Or maybe I’d return from my little out-of-body experience in an instant cold sweat.
4. Christopher Judge. I would spend the day in character as Teal’c, making little comments in his wonderfully deadpan style, everywhere from the set to the local 7-11. “I caution you, sir. It is not possible to drink it as a ‘big gulp’. I have tried many times.”
5. Claudia Black. “Claudia Christian? Hi, it’s Claudia, from the other night. I’m sitting around in my bathrobe with a photographer... would you like to come over and play?” [Claudia, see note above.]

All kinds of people are temporarily inhabiting the bodies of other Friday Fiver's here.

Meme by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 17, 2005

Personal Roundup

No great procolamations or punditry today. I'm a little under the weather and decided it was time for a roundup of personal points.

• Tommy's health continues to improve. It's now been over a month since his last serious vomit session. He weighs over twenty pounds now, and is walking fairly well. Also, feeding him is no longer quite the battle it once was since he eagerly accepts most of it and is even feeding himself to a large degree.
• I finally reorganized my neighborhood's website into a MovableType blog. It has two kinds of content, really: reference and ongoing. Trying to manage the ongoing content (news, events, etc.) by hand had become too much of a hassle, so I figured it would be better to push the reference content into the blog and then let it do it's normal thing for the ongoing content.

  I did pull a few neat tricks that I haven't done here. Notably, I treated different categories very differently. The main page is not a full mix of categories. Instead, it shows two distinct sections of "News" items of the last 120 days, and "Events" items that are dated in the future. Even the category archives had distinct formats. A few of those tricks may migrate back here, but I'm still experimenting.

  I don't want to link to it from here because I don't want to advertise my physical address on this site, but if you're a fellow MT-blogger and want to see a few tricks, I'll point you that way.

• I'm thinking seriously about getting involved in some kind of land deal for Flipside. I'm still running the numbers for feasibility, so no committments yet.
• My dad's health seems to be improving. This recent chemo pill seems to be doing the trick. The big tumor is now too small to detect by touch, and the little ones had already disappeared on the last CAT scan. They can't do another CAT scan for about a month or two due to the amount of radiation involved.

  He's still recovering from the pneumonia, but he's off the chemo pill for now and getting stronger. The last scan did show something on his stomach, and they're going to do a biopsy on that to see what it is. It could be a minor ulcer for all they know. But all in all, he's improving and starting to talk about making another trip here to see his grandchildren.

• I've gotten more serious about doing that comic strip. I've registered my domain -- no, it's not muppetporn.com -- and figured out how to structure the site for easy maintenance. I've also scripted out about thirty strips, almost all of them panel-by-panel.

  The main problem, as usual, is that I can't draw worth a damn, but I intend to use the computer to generate my graphics for me. I know the Poser package fairly well, but I need to learn a few time-saving tricks. In particular, the comic is the perfect application for saving off established characters in different versions (different outfits, hairstyles, physical conditions, etc.) as well as various settings (the diner, the living room, etc.) and then just mixing them up for a quick render. Alas, I haven't learned how to save-off these setups.

  I was thinking of it in terms of a 3x/week thing, not a daily. Once I see how long it takes to make a strip, I'll have a better idea. My time is very limited, so I have to do this "on the cheap" as far as time goes. It's just that I keep running into little short gags or observations that would be great in a comic strip form, but just don't fit into a more general blog. Anyway, if I can create the first month or so without pulling my hair out, I'll put it up. Hopefully, I can stay sufficiently ahead of the game so that it's never a rush to do tomorrow's strip. That's something I definitely don't need.

That's it for now.

Blog by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

February 14, 2005

Only twenty-eight days!

It's a very special day today. It's only one month to Steak & Blow-job Day!

(It's also a pretty nice day to be with MAW, who recognizes the difficulty of getting a babysitter on Valentine's Day and would rather go out later in the week anyway.)

Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 11, 2005

Second thoughts on tit-for-tat vs. master-slave

In an earlier post, I shared news that the reigning champion of the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma problem, Tit-for-Tat, had lost to a new Master-Slave strategy, and then I opined that this bode ill for society at large.

If carried into the real world (as tit-for-tat was), it would imply that the path towards greatest community efficiency is for most of us to become utter slaves to an annointed few, with those annointed cannibalizing their own ranks when the slaves were depleted.
...
However, I do not think that individuals will volunarily subordinate their self-interest to play the role of slave in this master-slave strategy.

But then I realized that we were already pursuing the Master-Slave strategy, though we more commonly refer to it as "breeding". In this strategy, its adherants are divided into two groups, parents and children, and they then pursue the Master-Slave strategy. Despite the common teenage complaint, it is the parents who have assumed the role of slave and the children who ironically have assumed the role of master.

Think about it. A parent willing makes great "economic" sacrifices for his child. This includes cash, of course, but it also extends to such intangibles as time, services, and physical health. In game terms, the parent almost always "cooperates".

Meanwhile, the child makes very few to no contributions along these lines, providing negligible income or services. This lessens as the child grows into adulthood (i.e. household chores), but it never comes close to evening out (i.e. college tuition). Thus, in game terms, the child almost always "defects".

And despite my assertion that humanity has too much self-interest to voluntarily subordinate themselves to such a strategy, it appears that billions are doing so, and most of those currently enjoying the "master" status are in fact looking forward to taking on their role as "slaves". With about six billion adherants, this strategy is serving our genes very well.

I guess it just took a month of sleep deprivation to drive this one home.

Blog by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday Five: Delicious Dining

This week's question comes from Pogo:

Five outstanding places to eat - where & why?

I'll start with some restaurants and see where I end up.

1. Tres Amigos, Austin, 183 & 290: It's just a nice little kid-friendly Tex-Mex restaraunt -- not trendy, just good food.
2. The Boulevard Restaurant, San Francisco: It's a pricey spot down by the waterfront. I had a great steak there once, sitting at the counter and watching the dessert chef use a blow-torch.
3. A little Italian place in south Munich: I've forgotten the name, but it was in the same building as a German software company I was visiting. The food wasn't that outstanding, IMO, but the atmosphere was. Apparently, Munich is the Hollywood of Germany, and this was fairly close to some of the larger studios, and this was a favorite hangout of a lot of the actors, directors, etc. In fact, the only reason we could get in was because that software company owned the building. It was just neat and surreal to be surrounded by some really gorgeous people who were evidently the German versions of Julia Roberts or Sean Connery and be totally oblivious to who they were.
4. Around a campfire: Mediocre food never tasted so good as when you've been outside hiking all day and are settling in for a cool evening around a warm fire.
5. Between the breasts of a woman you love: I'm talking about that nice little cleavage cradle, and I'll let you figure out the why.

Other Friday Fiver's are chowing down here.

Meme by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 10, 2005

Strayhorn's game is warming up

In an earlier post, I predicted that our state Comptroller, Ms. Carole Rhylandor Strayhorn I've-forgotten-which-order-I-use-my-last-names Keeton, would fiddle with the available income levels in order to meet her own budgetary desires. To be precise, I predicted that she would lower the currently envisioned surplus, but she's proven to be a little more wiley than I expected.

Instead, she's saying that if she gets the money she wants for her own department, she can raise the surplus. Read on. (Full article here, but link might not last.)

Republican Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn told senators on Tuesday they could have an extra $435 million to spend if they simply fund her office as she wants.

A preliminary state budget has proposed cutting her office by about 4 percent, a move she says would hamper her ability to collect the revenue the state needs.

By fully funding her office, Strayhorn said, she could collect more cash to spend. The extra $435 million would be more than double the surplus she told lawmakers in January they would have to spend in 2006-07.
...
"With full funding ... I can confidently add $435 million to the revenue estimate," Strayhorn said. "That's a return of $29 for every one you provide us in restored appropriations."

Note, however, that she is not saying "Give us more money than we originally expected, and we'll find more revenue." No, she is saying, "Don't cut our budget, and we'll find more revenue."

So, where is this extra $435 million coming from? What magic pill is going to cause the revenue to be available now when it wasn't going to be when she made the original estimate? It's not from additional resources. No, this would come from the same staff that could previously only deliver the $400 million surplus. Maybe, just maybe, that extra revenue was always there, and she was just low-balling the revenue as a bargaining chip for later negotiations.

Admittedly, this is the difference between $64.7 billion in revenues vs. $65.135 billion in revenues, an increase of less than 1%. That kind of variation can come just with unexpected turns in the economy, but the way she's presenting this as a "confident return" on investment stinks of the kind of budget games she's played in the past, especially since others had already estimated the revenues as being higher.

Strayhorn in 2006: The Democrats' best chance for retaking the Governor's mansion.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

Social Security, part 1.5

I'm still working up the "part 2" I promised before, but I thought I'd pass on links to a relatively new blog: Becker & Posner. Frankly, I'd never heard of these guys before their blog, but they seem to be genuinely qualified with good credentials -- little things like a Nobel prize, over a dozen scholarly books, years with a published column, and a faculty position at a law school.

Their format is a weekly cycle: Partner A writes on an issue, Partner B writes on the same issue, and then after a few days one or both writes a response to the comments. It's a slow-paced blog, but it's generally well written and rational. So far they've covered topics such as women in science, drug patents, racial profiling, preventative war, and global warming.

Read this week's commentary on Social Security by Posner and then by Becker.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

The newest basketball star...

You have to see this to believe it -- no description can do it justice.

I suspect it's a fake, but several Snopes queries came up empty. If it's real, we'll just have to see whether the NBA would count it as travelling.

Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 09, 2005

Tom-Walk

Tommy is walking!

(He still thinks he has to hold on to something, but as you can see, he's easily fooled.)

Blog by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

February 08, 2005

Louisiana State Quarter

In recognition of Fat Tuesday, the Federal Mint has issued a new Louisiana state quarter:

Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 07, 2005

Unfortunate juxtaposition

I have done nothing here but image capture these two ads as they appeared and add the animation to properly move between the frames.

Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mardi Gras Crackdown

New Orleans has promised to crack down on public displays of nudity at Mardi Gras festivals. We see the police hard at work here. Note the supply of "citations" hanging from the rear view mirror.

Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 01, 2005

Clinging to the steering wheel in a cold sweat

I'm out in the San Francisco Bay area this week on my first trip for the year. I've been told that there will be a lot of them this year, so this should become a common refrain:

If you need to get hold of me by email, you could try my work email (if you've got it), or you can reach me at

As for the rest of it, I had a little flight trouble, but at least I didn't get stranded in Chicago. I then managed to drop my cell phone in the Oakland airport and didn't realize it until I reached my hotel in San Rafael, thirty miles away. I retrieved it Monday night on a trip back to Oakland to visit Jerry.

Generally speaking, I really enjoy my trips out here. The SF Bay is a great place to visit though I'd hate to live here. The weather seems to be forever perfect, the vistas beautiful, and the architecture both grand and classic. My main complaint, however, is a hire-wire act I dread each trip: the Richmond Bridge.

There are three main bridges in the central part of the SF Bay: the Bay Bridge (which is actually two bridges joined at Treasure Island), the Golden Gate, and the Richmond Bridge. It was the Bay Bridge that partially collapsed in the 89 earthquake, though that section is being replaced by a new bridge. The other half of the Bay Bridge seems to be much newer or at least looks sturdier, a Golden Gate rendered in monochrome grey. The Golden Gate, of course, is a timeless classic.

The Richmond Bridge, however, is an afterthought, joining the East Bay with the North Bay. It's a 3-lane double-decker with two high-rising humps. Its design was to take two shorter bridges and just tie them together to make a longer bridge. There is no broad pedestrian sidewalk on this bridge. Instead, you're up very close the the side-rail of the bridge, and the side rail itself is not a solid thing. It's a collection of metal rails and pipes that has a six-inch gap at the bottom next to the pavement, presumably to let the air flow across the bridge smoothly. This also means that as a driver, you have a nice view through that gap to the water a hundred or so feet below.

Another amazing vista? In this case, no. You see, as rational and intelligent as I might present myself as, I'm afraid of heights. This is not a concious thing where I say, "Oh dear, I might fall." No, this is a visceral, hind-brain reaction to what appears to be my imminent death. Exactly when this hits me is a strange thing since I can stand next to a high-rise window without worry as long as the window does not reach the floor. Also, airplanes give me no worries at all. But a balcony, a subway grate, even a staircase that lets you see through the steps... I'm locked into a state of heart-racing panic. This bridge is particularly bad because I'm moving along at 40-50 mph and needing to keep up with shifting lane boundaries due to ongoing reconstruction and refitting. I'm not standing still next to imminent death. I'm running along next to the very precipice.

Normally I can make it across this bridge by a bit of Ego over Id: deep breaths and maintaining my visual focus on some detail of the vehicle in front of me. However, this has been getting harder recently as the lane-jogs have gotten worse, making it difficult to keep up with the car in front of me. Last night going back over to Oakland was particularly bad with the lower deck closed and all traffic squeezed into one lane each way across the top. Oncoming headlights, a bumpy ride, and certain death just inches away. On the other side, I had to pull over because my hands hurt so bad from their grip on the steering wheel.

Completely irrational... I know. My greatest risk of death was that I might be so badly freaked out that I would lose control and have a head on collision with oncoming traffic. Still, I have found that my conscious mind has very little control here, a subtle reminder that we're not too far from being shaven apes.

On the way back, I opted to take the southern route through San Francisco. That turned out to be very nice in its own right. It was late at night, and I was listening to one of my "Oomph!" mix-CDs. I crossed the Golden Gate to the fanfare of the end titles of the movie "Grand Canyon".

But even now, my knuckles still ache from the Richmond Bridge.

Narrative by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)