...on several fronts.
First off, the FAA did finally give me back the Medical Certificate that they denied me last September when I was still taking anti-anxiety medication. However, as I explain here on my aviation blog, they seem to want to me to keep proving my sanity on at least an annual basis. Whether this will last for the rest of my life I do not know. However, I resent being perpetually stigmatized for something that, according to my medical practitioners, was episodic.
Secondly, I was reminded of the collection of arbitrariness, interfering mind-sets and sink of crypto-fascist thinking that seems to populate the Home Owners Association (HOA) landscape when I read this story today about a lady in North Carolina who is being threatened with fines by her HOA because she is trying to save water by not planting grass in her yard. Apparently the HOA regulations mandate grassed yards. Thanks to Ed Cone for surfacing this piece of dysfunctional nonsense. When I moved to a house in Irving with my ex-wife and stepchildren in 1999, one of my decision criteria for the house was that it did not require membership of an HOA. I had already read too many stories of crypto-fascism masquerading as "keeping up property values" (many of them involving illegal restrictions on satellite dish installations) to want to have anything to do with an HOA. I have heard and read about a lot of incidents since that have validated my decisions.
Thirdly, the City of Duncanville has, for the last year, been on a campaign to close down a party house in the City named the Cherry Pit. The allegations made by the city are that the Cherry Pit is a swinger's club operating as a business. In order to build a case, they have raided the house 3 times in the last year, most recently twice in 3 days 2 weeks ago. They have produced an impressive affidavit, until you read the allegations, and look at the video that the city released to the local media. Then suddenly, some of the citations start to look awfully thin. For example, playing an ice-breaker game with play money as evidence of illegal gambling and money-laundering? Puhlease...Massive quantities of alcohol found? Yes, but if you look on the bottles you can see the names of the party guests - this is their own alcohol that they brought to the party and left behind the bar.
My fear is that the city is playing "whack a mole" with the Cherry Pit. There is really no good way to frame this sort of news. Either the city is trying to eliminate an unseemly business (which begs the question of why, 1 year after they started, the Cherry Pit is still there), or the city is engaging in overreach and harrassment because it does not have sufficient evidence. In either case the city collects lots of free, and not uplifting publicity. In the meantime, a central issue of personal property rights remains unexplored in the media, who have been acting as the City's stenographers in the past few weeks, printing press releases as fact and failing to ask even the most obvious questions of city officials. I thought that local media in the USA were bad after they completely mis-reported the tragic death of Tim Crawford when his plane dove into the sea off Martha's Vineyard. After observing the right royal mess of stenography and sensationalism disguised as news being propagated by the media over the Cherry Pit, I am further revising that opinion downwards.
UPDATE - The City of McKinney has apparently run off another swingers club - La Maison Joue. The reporting on Channel 11 is sensationalist drivel, complete with an "informant" in a disguised voice providing revelations about what supposedly went on there, and the usual "OhMiGod leafy conservative suburbia...bicyles...The Children!" overtones in the coverage. I turned the video off after they got to the angry neighbors section. There is a limit to how many people I can listen to, when those people do not understand that in a free country you do NOT have a right to not be offended. I don't like Dominionist religious types in my city, but that does not give me the right to want to expel them.
All of this stuff pisses me off royally, since it makes me start to wonder if the country that I thought I moved to in 1998 actually exists at all. It seems that far too many people here currently wish to live their lives by controlling the lives of others.
UPDATE 2 - Here is a story in the Miami Herald that shows that at least in Florida, a more respectful approach has been adopted. It seems that law enforcement overreach in 1999 led to a rollback of harrassment. Sometimes the little guys can win...and here is the humorous take on the swingers convention from Dave Barry...
UPDATE 3 - The best discussion location about the issues related to the Cherry Pit and other local district moves to regulate and raid swinger clubs is to be found here. It beats hands-down the discussions at other blogs, most of which appear to be dominated by leering, club-waving knuckle-draggers...

Link: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/127/a-devilish-green-angel.html?page=0%2C0

This article in Fast Company starts out talking about an innovative new approach to cement manufacture, which promises to reduce C02 pollution from cement plants. Cement manufacture is both an energy-intensive industry, and one that produces large quantities of CO2.
The article devolves later into more of an examination of the venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. Here is one of his better-known presentations.

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/20/221936/857/849/554427

I found this interesting commentary on the approaches and arguments deployed by anti-gay activists, which are frankly, both baffling and devoid of logical and intellectual substance to me.
As the diarist explains:

In forums all over the news sites, I've seen these accusations:
* Gays have an agenda (internal control). * Gays are trying to indoctrinate and spread their agenda to children (that encompasses indoctrination, dogma, and recruiting). * Gays try to make other people gay (recruiting and, to some extent, dropout control). * Gays are trying to censor Christian speech and beliefs (censorship). * Gays hate Christians (paranoia, isolation). * Gays are rebelling against God and/or "choosing" to be the way they are (this one is an "opposite" projection - the refusal to surrender will, which is a huge sin in most fundamentalist churches).
I could go on, but the point stands. They are projecting what they would do onto us. Their beliefs do not reflect reality.
They are paranoid that everyone is out to get them, which would mean that they're not accepted by the majority (because otherwise the majority would not be out to get them), so they project that onto the gays and insist that we're just looking for approval from the majority when we're asking for equal civil rights.
They're subordinate to their hierarchies (pastors, etc.) so they're convinced that gays are also subordinate to some gay hierarchy, because that's the way that people live, right? Somewhere, they're convinced there is a Gay Cabal that tells gay people what to do. And they're convinced that we obey it.

UPDATE - Commenter Planetologist over at PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula points out that a similar projection mechanism may be in force over the persistent claims by Creationists that science is a religion:

The entire mindset of religion is based on the premise that there is a non-questionable ultimate authority hovering out there in space, and if you're a minion of this cosmic mastermind you're also above questioning. It's a pyramid scheme of ever larger and more ridiculous "authority" figures, each one a blank stone wall blocking the path of actual knowledge.
This is the ultimate, final, fundamental difference between science and religion: authority. Science doesn't have authorities that are above questioning. In science we accept heroes not because they say they're heroes with some deep, mystical understanding of their own little fantasy world, but because they demonstrate something amazingly cool that no one knew before, and which the rest of us can go out there and test for ourselves. In contrast, the Pope asserts something he came up with in a dream, or the shower that morning, or where ever fiction writers come up with their ideas, and a billion people just say "yes, master".
This is also the reason that religious people keep insisting that science is a religion. They can't imagine anything else. They can't imagine that it is possible to think about uncomfortable possibilities or new paradigms without asking someone's permission. It's the permission part that separates the rational people from the ones with a god infection. I don't need permission to think for myself and conclude that two plus two is actually four.

Link: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4316#more

Over at The Oil Drum, Jerome a Paris as written an analysis of the feasibility of implementing the strategy proposed in Al Gore's recent speech. His verdict:

While a goal of 100% of carbon-free electricity is probably unrealistic, it therefore seems possible to get pretty close to that, especially if nuclear and hydro are included in the mix. A plan that announced a specific goal of 40-50% of wind-generated electricity by 2020 and 10-20% of solar, with the appropriate feed-in mechanisms, demand guarantees for manufacturers and investment in the grid would therefore be realistic, make economic sense, and fulfill two major strategic goals: reduce carbon emissions, and lower fossil fuel demand.

It makes a change to read a thoughtful analysis of Gore's speech, instead of having to wade through a pile of contradictory "Al Gore is right", "Al Gore is wrong" postings, replete with the usual claptrap and fallacious nonsense based on allegations that Al Gore is a hypocrite (which is one of the more egregious logical fallacies, worthy of the classic rejoinder "so what?").

Link: http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=8674699

...from NewsChannel 5 in Nashville comes an interesting story of a number of state employees who, it seems, were prepared to knowingly pay money to have degrees created for them.

Last month, Newman hired Lichtenberger to head the state's codes enforcement training program...Lichtenberger signed her state application saying she had attended Belford University, receiving a bachelor's in business.
What the commissioner didn't know at the time was this: "It is a sham institution," Newman told Williams.
Belford's slick web site offers affordable bachelor's, master's and doctorate degrees in just seven days. Get credit for what you've learned in life for only $449.

The bad news is that several instances of purchasing of degrees were by people who probably have acquired academic tenure as a result.
The application for employment of the State of Tennessee contains the following statement:
The employment application used by the State of Tennessee includes the following passage:

Under penalty of perjury, I certify that the information I am providing in this application is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that should investigation show any falsification or material misrepresentation, I will not be considered for employment, or if employed, I will be dismissed and disqualified from future examinations. I hereby authorize the State of Tennessee to make all necessary investigations concerning me or my actions and to receive and make available to all state agencies my academic records or other materials pertinent to my qualifications. I further authorize and request each former employer, educational institution, or organization (including law enforcement agencies) to provide all information that may be sought in connection with this application.

I await news of action being taken against the employees found to have falsified their qualifications...but I'm not holding my breath...

...who is the current Lands Commisioner, and a Republican. Despite revelations (a matter of public record) that an employee quit his office after he made improper sexual advances to her over 3 years ago, the local media in and around Seattle seem to be very reluctant to touch this story.
However, a local blogger has developed the next Sutherland ad campaign, if he is interested...

After being involved in this Internet dating thingy for over 2 years, I finally got around to writing my hit-list of my Top 12 Profile Annoyances. Here it is. All examples are real-life, culled from profiles viewed in the last 24 hours.

1. A tagline that is a whine.
Here’s a great example: “Almost 1900 views this past month and NO EMAILS??? Is this another Voyer Site????”. Well no my dear, has it occurred to you that nobody wants to talk with you because the tagline showed that you have, well, a bit of an attitude problem? (Also, you can’t spell either, which further undermines your whole profile).
2. Inability to write the English language anywhere near correctly
Example: “We love fullfill interests of others as well as our selfs where all are mutual about there wants”. This is a dead giveaway that (a) English might not be your first language, and (b) you don’t write it well enough and need to get some tuition.
3. Pictures that are clearly way out of date
Hint to the ladies: bubble-cut perms went out of fashion about 1985. Hint to the guys: mullets are not quite out of fashion, but you are really really typecasting yourself if you have one. Can anybody say “Bubba”?
4. A profile that consists of a humorless list of things you do not want to encounter.
This is the dating site equivalent of the salesperson who cannot talk about his product, but insists instead on talking about how bad all of the other competing products are. The only way this is acceptable is if you use a lot of humour. Unfortunately nearly all of the people that do this write the list in a way that shows no discernible sense of humour. Who wants to spend time with a negative, humourless person?
5. SHOUTING LIKE THIS IN A PROFILE. EVER.
It makes you look inarticulate, angry, or both.
6. A profile that consists of a long list of precise attributes that a prospective partner must meet before you will even consider them.
The law of averages suggests that if you do this, you may have to wait until Mountains Crumble To The Sea before you find anybody who matches all of the items on the list. In the meantime, oh look, there goes another person who might be good for you..shame he/she didn’t meet criterion #37 on the list…
7. Profile pictures that make you look sad, angry, confused or just plain weird.
Nobody wants to seriously consider going out with a person who looks like they might be one of a psychopath, depressed, suicidal, narcoleptic or totally screwed-up.
8. A really really long profile.
The average American has an attention span slightly longer than that of a gnat. A long profile containing a synopsis of your life story and social attitudes, a bunch of GMHAP about how wonderful you are (see below), an exhaustive list of your hobbies, your likes and dislikes and what you really want to be doing in 10 years may impress your close friends, but most potential suitors will have suffered eye-glaze and gone walkabout about 3 paragraphs back. A profile this long has to be really well written in order to avoid becoming a cure for insomnia.
9. Telling everybody how damn nice and wonderful you are.
Nobody is going to admit to being a miserable psycho, so telling me that you are a nice, family-oriented person who helps old ladies across the road, talks to God etc. is what I define as God Motherhood And Apple Pie. Everybody claims it, and some are maybe not telling the truth. What I really want to understand is (a) Why You Are Different and (b) Why Should I Be Interested In Meeting You. Telling me how wonderful you are does not answer either of those questions. (It also puts you well on the way to falling into #8...)
10. Including an Instant Message ID and then refusing to chat on that IM client.
If you are going to include an ID of this type, you can expect people to try to contact you using it, the same way that they would use an email ID if you provided one. Refusing to talk to them is a really good way of not meeting anybody, and woe betide you if you decided later that you wanted to talk to me, because guess what? I just put you on my ignore list.
11. Saying absolutely nothing about yourself.
Here's a doozy from a woman who is really going to attract interest:

What do you hope to find
SOMEONE WHO IS HOT

Extra Notes
MAYBE LATER

Well that was informative wasn't it. Guess what happened to her profile?

12. Repeating yourself repeating yourself.
Saying "NO MARRIED MEN" 6 or more times in total, once in each section of your profile, certainly gets the message across. Unfortunately it also tells me that you might have a chip on your shoulder, or an attitude problem, and you obviously think I can't read, so guess what? You just lost me. In this case, you also scored on item #5 (SHOUTING).

Link: http://bagnewsnotes.com

...has ignited a firestorm in the media and commentary circles.
My view: the fact that the editor of the New Yorker has been obliged to explain that the cover was mean to be satirical shows that it failed as satire. If you have to explain a joke, the act of explanation proves that the joke did not work.
There is a discussion here about the visual aspects of the cover. The cartoonist Ruben Bolling also explains here very neatly why the cartoon does not work in its published form. As he says:

But it's actually less clear what the satirical intent of The New Yorker cartoon is. It just shows an America-hating, terrorist President Obama. Of course, I'm certain Blitt intended to make fun of people's paranoid perceptions of Obama, not how leftist/radical/Muslim Obama is. But that's because I've seen his cartoons before, and because I know what could or couldn't be the stance of The New Yorker. But if this same cartoon were created by Sean Delonas and published by The New York Post, I'd think it was satirizing Obama himself, and that's a very different (opposite) point -- it would be tasteless and offensive.
A cartoon shouldn't rely on the context of its creator and publisher in order to successfully make its point. Some more indicators should have been utilized in the cartoon in order to make the target of its satire clearer.

I'm just pissed off with the magazine for playing into and playing up all of the negative stereotypes and falsehoods already circulating about Barack Obama. They screwed up big time on this, but I am hearing the same obstinate denial that I hear all of the time from media folks these days about their poor performance.
Memo to the editor: an error is not a mistake until you refuse to admit to it. Guess where you are right now?

Link: http://www.brasstacksdesign.com/

Brass Tacks Design.

Once in a while I find myself writing in frustration and exasperation, having been proved wrong by events.
It is clear now that Brett Favre still wants to play in the NFL. Four months after announcing his retirement, which included the interestingly ambiguous words "I can still play football. I'm just not sure that I want to", Favre has apparently decided that he does want to play again.
But not for the Green Bay Packers.
He has apparently emailed the Packers asking to be reinstated from the Reserve-Retired List (where he was placed after announcing this retirement earlier this year) and then released by the team.
Technically, the Packers have three choices. They can re-instate Favre to the active roster and use him. They can release him, in which case he immediately becomes a free agent, free to sign with any team. Or they can try to trade him.
In the latter case, until (and if) Green Bay finds a trade partner, Favre uses up a roster spot as if he was an active player. Given that he is on the backside of his career, it is unlikely that any team will be prepared to assume his current contract with its $12m salary. Favre therefore needs to be prepared to re-structure his contract to facilitate any trade. Given that he has asked for his release, it is unlikely he will agree to this. No contract re-structuring really eliminates any market for a trade. Right now trading Favre is going to be impossible.
For the Packers, this really is a case of "rock meet hard place, hard place meet rock". They could keep Favre, but if he is pissed off, that will not work, and it is likely that Aaron Rodgers will demand a trade out of Green Bay, since he would conclude (possibly correctly) that the Packers and Favre have jointly screwed him over.
They can release him, take a cap hit on the remaining portion of his signing bonus, and then hope that Rodgers proves to be a worthy successor. If he is not effective in the upcoming season, then that will probably terminate the career of Packers GM Ted Thompson. It may also terminate the career of Head Coach Mike McCarthy.
Geez, this is a mess. Sadly, I lay most of the blame with Brett Favre. He clearly couldn't make up his mind whether or not to retire, but went ahead with the announcement anyway and now, like the ageing boxer who thinks he has "one more great fight" left in him, he wants to play on. Somebody needs to explain to him that there is nothing wrong with retiring while you are still able to perform. Perhaps he needs to talk to Robert Smith and Barry Sanders, who both walked away in their prime, even though they could have continued to play on and make big money. OTOH he may need to avoid talking to Jerry Rice, who continued to play until the Denver Broncos told him that he did not have the performance any more to be an NFL regular-season receiver.
Are the Packers also to blame for the mess? It depends on whether you believe that they have to have Brett Favre under center until Favre wants to retire. The Packers clearly believed that they needed a quick decision from him this year, and they also believed that Aaron Rodgers is ready to become the starting quarterback. Players come and go, but teams have to continue into the future. I don't fault the Packers for wanting a decision from Favre. I also don't know what else they could have done once Favre decided that he still wanted to play in the NFL.
Perhaps the best idea is for Brett to talk to Joe Montana, who was traded by the 49ers late in his career to the Kansas City Chiefs. Montana was replaced at the 49ers by the younger and more mobile Steve Young, but hung around for two more seasons with the Chiefs. Brett might get some older wisdom from "Joe Cool".