i'm am resolving to practice my arabic at least one hour every day. i probably average at least that much already, except i usually go a few days without working on it and thn have a few catch-up marathons right before meeting with the tutor. i've decided that's not working very well. i retain stuff better if i do it in smaller regular spurts.
i'm writing this, not because most of you care, but because, by writing it and posting it on the internet, i have this idea it will take my resolution more seriously. sorry to delve into such noz-centric blogging. but in the end this is my site. so there
speaking of which: my arabic is possibly up in the air again. i managed to keep it up while traveling in canada. my co-student was meeting with the tutor while i was away but i kept up via email. but our tutor is a full time professor and he is teaching a course overload this semester. so he's not sure if he will have time to meet with us every week. he will let us know after he sees how the first week of his teaching goes. i'm hoping he will be able to do it, even if we have to switch nights. but if not, me and my fellow student are determined to carry on. i guess we'll just find another tutor. i hope it doesn't come to that, i like the one we got.
meanwhile, either tonight or tomorrow night i will meet a former arabic classmate for dinner. said classmate was once in a first year class with me and then went to cairo for two years to study. no doubt she can talk circles around me in arabic--somewhat embarrassing considering that it was not all that long ago that we were basically at the same level. she's also trying to invite our former professor. anotheer reason to get cracking on arabic.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
unwinnable flop
so bush flopped back, after being flipped for only a single day. i guess his aids found the time to reprogram him in the last 24 hours.
of course, the kerry campaign isn't it getting any better. kerry campaign spokesperson phil singer reacted to bush's latest reversal as follows:
of course, the kerry campaign isn't it getting any better. kerry campaign spokesperson phil singer reacted to bush's latest reversal as follows:
"What today showed is that George Bush might be able to give a speech saying he can win the war on terror. But he's clearly got real doubts about his ability to do so and for good reason"no, what it shows is that it is politically untenable for any mainstream politician to speak the truth about this mess we have gotten ourselves into. and that, unfortunately, does not bode well for the future no matter what happens in the upcoming election. even if kerry wins (and don't get me wrong, i hope he does), i have serious concerns whether he will be able to really initiate a serious discussion with the american public about american foreign policy.
unwinnable
at the very least, i'm glad he said it:
never mind that bush has repeatedly used the phrase "win the war on terror" over the past two and one-half years. and never mind that in bush's press conference last april bush specifically said:
(incidentally, the april press conference is when bush famously could not come up with a single mistake he made since he became president. i wonder if he can think of one now?)
it may have taken bush a few months, but at least he's finally recognizing the obvious. the war on terror (with or without the "ism") was never more than a catchy slogan designed to dress up an aggressive foreign policy. after 9-11. a more honest administration would have declared a war on bin laden or al-qaeda, but that doesn't get us to iraq. so bush moronically declared war on a tactic rather than a culpable party and relentlessly repeated it, drowning out those who noted that declaring war on terrorism after 9-11 was like declaring war on planes after pearl harbor.
(and its also worth noting that the bush administration has not seriously pursued terrorists in all forms, despite their sweeping rhetoric. they are remarkably tolerant of terrorists who happen to use the tactic to pursue the right goals. for example, they classified the anti-iranian terrorist organization mujahideen-e khalq as "protected persons" after encountering them on the iraqi border with iran. they also appointed ayad allawi to be prime minister of iraq, a man who was best known for allegations that he was behind a series of terrorists attacks directed against saddam hussein's government in the 1990s)
so i am pleasantly surprised to find that bush may finally be recognizing the obvious about the "war on terror." bush's advisors, meanwhile, are already trying to undo the "damage" by respinning his statement that the war is unwinnable to mean that, in fact, it is winnable (the article i cite about with the bush quote notes: "White House officials said the president was not signaling a change in policy, and they sought to explain his statement by saying he was emphasizing the long-term nature of the struggle.")
but the real depressing part of all this is the kerry campaign's response (also from the above article):
In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program "Today," conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign.
"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
never mind that bush has repeatedly used the phrase "win the war on terror" over the past two and one-half years. and never mind that in bush's press conference last april bush specifically said:
One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we are asking questions, is, 'Can you ever win the war on terror?' Of course you can.
(incidentally, the april press conference is when bush famously could not come up with a single mistake he made since he became president. i wonder if he can think of one now?)
it may have taken bush a few months, but at least he's finally recognizing the obvious. the war on terror (with or without the "ism") was never more than a catchy slogan designed to dress up an aggressive foreign policy. after 9-11. a more honest administration would have declared a war on bin laden or al-qaeda, but that doesn't get us to iraq. so bush moronically declared war on a tactic rather than a culpable party and relentlessly repeated it, drowning out those who noted that declaring war on terrorism after 9-11 was like declaring war on planes after pearl harbor.
(and its also worth noting that the bush administration has not seriously pursued terrorists in all forms, despite their sweeping rhetoric. they are remarkably tolerant of terrorists who happen to use the tactic to pursue the right goals. for example, they classified the anti-iranian terrorist organization mujahideen-e khalq as "protected persons" after encountering them on the iraqi border with iran. they also appointed ayad allawi to be prime minister of iraq, a man who was best known for allegations that he was behind a series of terrorists attacks directed against saddam hussein's government in the 1990s)
so i am pleasantly surprised to find that bush may finally be recognizing the obvious about the "war on terror." bush's advisors, meanwhile, are already trying to undo the "damage" by respinning his statement that the war is unwinnable to mean that, in fact, it is winnable (the article i cite about with the bush quote notes: "White House officials said the president was not signaling a change in policy, and they sought to explain his statement by saying he was emphasizing the long-term nature of the struggle.")
but the real depressing part of all this is the kerry campaign's response (also from the above article):
"After months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on their singular ability to win the war on terror, the president now says we can't win the war on terrorism," Senator John Edwards, Mr. Kerry's running mate, said in a statement. "This is no time to declare defeat. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but we have a comprehensive longterm plan to make America safer. And that's a difference."rather than hammering bush on his flip-flopping about the winnability of the war or the way the bush administration framed its response to the war in the first place, edwards seems to be adopting the "war on terrorism" slogan whole-heartedly. winning the war on terror(ism) is not a matter of having the right leadership, it's a loser from the get-go simply because of the way it defines the battle. i just wish the democrats (or any major politician) had the guts to state the obvious here.
Mr. Edwards elaborated on his criticism in an interview Monday with the ABC program "Nightline.'' Mr. Edwards said the battle against terrorism was "absolutely winnable" with the right leadership.
Monday, August 30, 2004
galilean citizens for the truth
via musing's musings, check out this new issue advertisement by Galilean Citizens for the Truth. it raises some serious questions about this jesus guy's service record. i wonder whether he was even in bethlehem on christmas day.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
african spam follow-up (hazzard county edition)
in the comments to the below african spam post, sarah noted that one of her friends replied to a nigerian spammer recently, writing her reply as if she were a character from the dukes of hazzard. an email exchange ensued, which is posted here
Saturday, August 28, 2004
this is a test
Kukeldash Madrassa, Tashkent
Originally uploaded by upyernoz.
it's hot as hell today, so i'm sitting in an air conditioned room configuring flickr.
assuming i do this right, above is a photo of the kukeldash madrassa in tashkent. i have nothing to say about it, i just want to see if this posts correctly
and, by the way, if anyone is considering joining flickr--a free service allowing you to post and share photos, let me know (via email or the comments to this post). if i invite you to join it will help me upgrade to the pro version
african spam
i am continually entertained by this spam i get from alleged relatives of former african leaders trying to scam money off me. the entertaining part is not that they are asking, or posing as relatives of former deposed leaders, but that they are choosing only some of the nastiest former dictators of the continent. i have gotten appeals from alleged relatives of general abacha of nigeria, charles taylor of liberia, mubutu sese seko of zaire (congo), and idi amin of uganda. it's not like africa is brimming with good leaders, but why are they choosing so many famously awful people to give their appeal some semblance of credibility?
there are plenty of african leaders who i have never heard of, why don't they use them? and even among the ones i have heard of there are clearly better choices. jomo kenyatta had his human rights problems during his leadership of kenya, but now now is pretty universally respected and remembered as the leader of the independence struggle against britain and the founder of his country. and what about nelson mandela? he's almost too obvious. but then, he's still alive. maybe that's somehow a problem if you are in the pose-as-former-leader's-relatives-to-scam-money trade
i suspect that the reason so many terrible names are dropped in these appeals is because either (1) the author of the email wants to drop a name that the reader may have heard of, and generally only bad african leaders get any publicity, or (2) the authors themselves are not african and have not heard of any other african leaders themselves. either way, this is a sad reflection of the fact that the only way african leaders get any major press is when they do something really bad. and even then, there is no guarantee. i can't remember the names of any of the hutu leadership from the rwandan genocide. maybe it's because their children haven't gotten in on the spam racket yet.
in any case, its interesting because the authors of these emails are really toeing a fine line here--they want a name who the reader has heard of enough to give them credibility of a real former president/prime minister/emperor/whatever, but not heard of the individual enough to know just how little sympathy they deserve. maybe i should google up a few human rights link and send them as a reply to the next appeal i receive.
there are plenty of african leaders who i have never heard of, why don't they use them? and even among the ones i have heard of there are clearly better choices. jomo kenyatta had his human rights problems during his leadership of kenya, but now now is pretty universally respected and remembered as the leader of the independence struggle against britain and the founder of his country. and what about nelson mandela? he's almost too obvious. but then, he's still alive. maybe that's somehow a problem if you are in the pose-as-former-leader's-relatives-to-scam-money trade
i suspect that the reason so many terrible names are dropped in these appeals is because either (1) the author of the email wants to drop a name that the reader may have heard of, and generally only bad african leaders get any publicity, or (2) the authors themselves are not african and have not heard of any other african leaders themselves. either way, this is a sad reflection of the fact that the only way african leaders get any major press is when they do something really bad. and even then, there is no guarantee. i can't remember the names of any of the hutu leadership from the rwandan genocide. maybe it's because their children haven't gotten in on the spam racket yet.
in any case, its interesting because the authors of these emails are really toeing a fine line here--they want a name who the reader has heard of enough to give them credibility of a real former president/prime minister/emperor/whatever, but not heard of the individual enough to know just how little sympathy they deserve. maybe i should google up a few human rights link and send them as a reply to the next appeal i receive.
conventions
i expect to watch even less of the rnc than i did the dnc, only because it is less likely that i will go to a party where the rnc is on the t.v. at the very least i am grateful that, for the first time in over a decade, i am not living/working in a city hosting a convention. political conventions may be a non-event this year to me sitting here, but if you happen to work in the host city they are simply a major pain in the ass.
i'm beginning to wonder whether in future years conventions will have a hard time finding host cities. before the DNC, boston projected that the convention would bring in $154 million. immediately after it ended, the city announced that the returns were a far more modest $14.8 million. on npr the other day they noted that the boston nummbers are still being revised downward and probably will result in a net loss for the host city.
new york is only going to be worse. aside from the fact that everything is more expensive when you do it in new york, the extra security that comes with the heightened terrorism alerts, practically guarantees that this thing will be in the red when it's all over. plus, many people i know in new york (like people in boston last month) are not going to work this week, and many are leaving the city. the loss of productivity alone would be hard for even a high-profit convention to make up. it's not surprising that the new york city comptroller is projecting big losses.
so what happens if four years from now the two political parties can't find a city that is willing to host their event? will political conventions break their big-city traditions and become more of a rural retreat? or will there always be a city ready to suck up the losses for the national exposure? when i lived in st. louis that city seemed to have a permanent chip on its shoulder about whether it is an important place or not. i would not be surprised if they bankrupted the city just to get a little national limelight. of course, if there is a terrorist attack in nyc this week, even st. louis might have second thoughts
i'm beginning to wonder whether in future years conventions will have a hard time finding host cities. before the DNC, boston projected that the convention would bring in $154 million. immediately after it ended, the city announced that the returns were a far more modest $14.8 million. on npr the other day they noted that the boston nummbers are still being revised downward and probably will result in a net loss for the host city.
new york is only going to be worse. aside from the fact that everything is more expensive when you do it in new york, the extra security that comes with the heightened terrorism alerts, practically guarantees that this thing will be in the red when it's all over. plus, many people i know in new york (like people in boston last month) are not going to work this week, and many are leaving the city. the loss of productivity alone would be hard for even a high-profit convention to make up. it's not surprising that the new york city comptroller is projecting big losses.
so what happens if four years from now the two political parties can't find a city that is willing to host their event? will political conventions break their big-city traditions and become more of a rural retreat? or will there always be a city ready to suck up the losses for the national exposure? when i lived in st. louis that city seemed to have a permanent chip on its shoulder about whether it is an important place or not. i would not be surprised if they bankrupted the city just to get a little national limelight. of course, if there is a terrorist attack in nyc this week, even st. louis might have second thoughts
Thursday, August 26, 2004
bizarre
so now bush wants to stop all issue advertisement. it's actually kind of bizarre when you think about it. bush is not proposing that he take the tax exemption away from 527s (as tax-exempt issue advertisers are known), but rather he wants them "to stop airing political ads." in other words, bush is calling for only the official political parties and political candidates to be allowed to engage in political speech.
bush's statement comes as the "swift boat veterans for truth"'s credibility is sinking like a rock and john mccain and others have demanding that bush condemn the swift boat advertisements. rather than specifically condemning what SBVfT is saying, he is attacking the right of SBVfT or other "shadowy groups" to say anything at all. (oddly by "shadowy groups," bush includes organizations like moveon.org, even though, unlike SBVfT, where moveon.org gets its funding from is public knowledge).
not only is bush revealing a profound ignorance of the concept of free speech, but he's also completely missing the point of the objection to the SBVfT advertisement. the problem with SBVfT is not that they are running commercials, but rather: (1) that they are lying in them, and (2) that there are some suspicions that the bush administration is sponsoring their ad campaign (this is a problem because that would be illegal).
significantly, bush is not alleging that moveon.org is lying in any of their commercials or that moveon.org is secretly being funded by the kerry campaign. in other words, bush is not addressing any of the objection to the SBVfT commercial at all. sure, his proposal to ban all issue advertisement would take the SBVfT ad off the air, but it would also bar virtually any organization from publicly taking a political position during a political campaign.
bush's statement comes as the "swift boat veterans for truth"'s credibility is sinking like a rock and john mccain and others have demanding that bush condemn the swift boat advertisements. rather than specifically condemning what SBVfT is saying, he is attacking the right of SBVfT or other "shadowy groups" to say anything at all. (oddly by "shadowy groups," bush includes organizations like moveon.org, even though, unlike SBVfT, where moveon.org gets its funding from is public knowledge).
not only is bush revealing a profound ignorance of the concept of free speech, but he's also completely missing the point of the objection to the SBVfT advertisement. the problem with SBVfT is not that they are running commercials, but rather: (1) that they are lying in them, and (2) that there are some suspicions that the bush administration is sponsoring their ad campaign (this is a problem because that would be illegal).
significantly, bush is not alleging that moveon.org is lying in any of their commercials or that moveon.org is secretly being funded by the kerry campaign. in other words, bush is not addressing any of the objection to the SBVfT commercial at all. sure, his proposal to ban all issue advertisement would take the SBVfT ad off the air, but it would also bar virtually any organization from publicly taking a political position during a political campaign.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
swift
i'm both surprised and appalled by all the media attention this swift boat nonsense is getting. the commercial challenging kerry's account came out and the credibility of the people shown in the commercial was already being called into question before we left for vacation two and one-half weeks ago. while i'm not surprised that the bush campaign (or at least the campaign supporters) would air such a smear, i was really surprised to learn that i had missed two solid weeks of intense media coverage of this non-story. it's not like the media was going through a slow period either. during the same period i was gone there was, and still is, intense fighting in najaf. fighting which, at least this morning, did not even reach the front page of the new york times. (there was, on the other hand, a story about the swift boat veterans group's attorney)
are people bored of the war now? not to let the bush people who pushed this issue off the hook, but some of this is kerry's fault. he's been avoiding talking about the war too--largely because he is unwilling to take a real stand on the issue. is it too much to ask that the majority of americans who now believe the iraq war was a mistake have one presidential candidate who is willing to publically articulate that view?
are people bored of the war now? not to let the bush people who pushed this issue off the hook, but some of this is kerry's fault. he's been avoiding talking about the war too--largely because he is unwilling to take a real stand on the issue. is it too much to ask that the majority of americans who now believe the iraq war was a mistake have one presidential candidate who is willing to publically articulate that view?
Monday, August 23, 2004
olympics and seals
sarah seems to be transfixed by the olympics. like most sporting events, i could care less about watching it. but i do find the olympics interesting as a cultural phenomenon. that official position lets me completely avoid watching them, and yet somehow lamely feel like i'm participating in the whole hoop-di-doo by standing in the background and nodding knowingly at everything that happens.
at one point during our recent trip, mrs. noz noted that during the last olympics we were also in canada. in the winter of 2002, mrs. noz had a conference in toronto. i followed along for a long weekend to soak up the free hotel and burn all my loonies as she was confined to a windowless conference room. in those days, virtually every spare surface had a screen with people curling on it. curling is perhaps the least comprehensible and most dull sport in the universe, but the canadians were transfixed, which, in turn, fascinated me. upon reflection i realized that curling only seemed ridiculous because it wasn't familiar to me. but that didn't make curling less ridiculous, it just made even more familiar sports seem like odd rituals, somehow mesmerizing to virtually everyone but me.
this year in canada i didn't see as much mania about the olympics. maybe because it's the summer, not winter, games. winter is probably where canada does best. but it was amusing to see the front page banner headlines of the vancouver paper touting that canada had won a silver medal in trampoline. i didn't even realize there was a trampoline olympic event. i wonder if that big parachute is also an olympic sport.
------------
post-script to the below post: as mrs. noz points out in her first ever comment on this site, we did see seals on our trip. the first one we saw turned its head to look right at us as we kayaked past it. i, of course, was oblivious even though i saw it first. "what's that dog doing way out here?" i asked my wife. after that, mrs. noz was obsessed with seeing seals and seemed to spot them every ten seconds. most of the time, she would call out "seal!" and i would turn my head only to see a fading ripple in the water
at one point during our recent trip, mrs. noz noted that during the last olympics we were also in canada. in the winter of 2002, mrs. noz had a conference in toronto. i followed along for a long weekend to soak up the free hotel and burn all my loonies as she was confined to a windowless conference room. in those days, virtually every spare surface had a screen with people curling on it. curling is perhaps the least comprehensible and most dull sport in the universe, but the canadians were transfixed, which, in turn, fascinated me. upon reflection i realized that curling only seemed ridiculous because it wasn't familiar to me. but that didn't make curling less ridiculous, it just made even more familiar sports seem like odd rituals, somehow mesmerizing to virtually everyone but me.
this year in canada i didn't see as much mania about the olympics. maybe because it's the summer, not winter, games. winter is probably where canada does best. but it was amusing to see the front page banner headlines of the vancouver paper touting that canada had won a silver medal in trampoline. i didn't even realize there was a trampoline olympic event. i wonder if that big parachute is also an olympic sport.
------------
post-script to the below post: as mrs. noz points out in her first ever comment on this site, we did see seals on our trip. the first one we saw turned its head to look right at us as we kayaked past it. i, of course, was oblivious even though i saw it first. "what's that dog doing way out here?" i asked my wife. after that, mrs. noz was obsessed with seeing seals and seemed to spot them every ten seconds. most of the time, she would call out "seal!" and i would turn my head only to see a fading ripple in the water
canada trip wrap-up post
i'm home now. it was a good trip. as always, its nice to leave this country to get a slightly different perspective on life. although canada is only slightly different, it still does the job. i'm back without being sick of it here anymore.
so i didn't really blog when i was gone. i've been thinking about why not. the main reason seems to be that when i travel i'm more focused on what is going on immediately around me and not letting political or other ideas rattle around my skull until they're dying to get out.
on the other hand, last year when i was traveling in uzbekistan i blogged pretty regularly. but that was more of a travelogue than my normal posts. which begs the question why i didn't write a travelogue in canada.
but the uzbek trip was different in one imporant way: i was traveling alone. sure i made some friends along the way and, in fact, was rarely completely solo anywhere i went. but because no one who i spent time with in uzbekistan shared my normal life with me back home meant i felt more of a need to document what i was seeing. when i sit here and remember something that happened in bukhara, i can read what i wrote on my trip to prove it really happened. and it helps me remember not just whatever i happened to write about. reading contemporaneous writings brings back the feeling of what it was like on that day. i remember not only what i wrote, but what i forgot to write, what i decided to edit out, what i did after i left the internet cafe, etc.
and it's not just what i wrote in this blog. i also kept a journal when i traveled in uzbekistan. i also wrote a journal when i visited europe in '92, kenya, uganda, vietnam and mali. in short, only on the trips that i did not take with mrs. noz. i never kept a journal on any of the trips where she accompanied me: europe in '96, turkey, tunisia, sicily, and now canada. because i can reminisce about each of those trips with her, i felt no need to document what did or didn't happen to prove that i didn't imagine it.
anyway, it was a good trip. i was a bit out of touch with politics, at least american politics. on our last night in the queen charlotte islands, we happened to have dinner with this guy. there were about 30 people at the dinner with us--a local woman hosted tourists at her house where she served us traditional haida food. one of the other tourists was mr. layton. almost all the other tourists at the dinner were canadian, so i think mrs. noz and i may have been the only ones who never heard of layton before he arrived. but i did get to talk to him. as a labor lawyer, it was pretty interesting to discuss labor issues with the leader of the NDP, basically canada's labor party. and now i got a name to drop whenever i talk to a canadian.
obviously, a lot more obviously happened over the past two weeks. maybe i'll mention it later. or maybe not. it is good to be back. even though i'm swamped at work (thanks cassie!) i'm anxious to start blogging more again. so i think my somewhat unintentional haitus is over now.
so i didn't really blog when i was gone. i've been thinking about why not. the main reason seems to be that when i travel i'm more focused on what is going on immediately around me and not letting political or other ideas rattle around my skull until they're dying to get out.
on the other hand, last year when i was traveling in uzbekistan i blogged pretty regularly. but that was more of a travelogue than my normal posts. which begs the question why i didn't write a travelogue in canada.
but the uzbek trip was different in one imporant way: i was traveling alone. sure i made some friends along the way and, in fact, was rarely completely solo anywhere i went. but because no one who i spent time with in uzbekistan shared my normal life with me back home meant i felt more of a need to document what i was seeing. when i sit here and remember something that happened in bukhara, i can read what i wrote on my trip to prove it really happened. and it helps me remember not just whatever i happened to write about. reading contemporaneous writings brings back the feeling of what it was like on that day. i remember not only what i wrote, but what i forgot to write, what i decided to edit out, what i did after i left the internet cafe, etc.
and it's not just what i wrote in this blog. i also kept a journal when i traveled in uzbekistan. i also wrote a journal when i visited europe in '92, kenya, uganda, vietnam and mali. in short, only on the trips that i did not take with mrs. noz. i never kept a journal on any of the trips where she accompanied me: europe in '96, turkey, tunisia, sicily, and now canada. because i can reminisce about each of those trips with her, i felt no need to document what did or didn't happen to prove that i didn't imagine it.
anyway, it was a good trip. i was a bit out of touch with politics, at least american politics. on our last night in the queen charlotte islands, we happened to have dinner with this guy. there were about 30 people at the dinner with us--a local woman hosted tourists at her house where she served us traditional haida food. one of the other tourists was mr. layton. almost all the other tourists at the dinner were canadian, so i think mrs. noz and i may have been the only ones who never heard of layton before he arrived. but i did get to talk to him. as a labor lawyer, it was pretty interesting to discuss labor issues with the leader of the NDP, basically canada's labor party. and now i got a name to drop whenever i talk to a canadian.
obviously, a lot more obviously happened over the past two weeks. maybe i'll mention it later. or maybe not. it is good to be back. even though i'm swamped at work (thanks cassie!) i'm anxious to start blogging more again. so i think my somewhat unintentional haitus is over now.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
okay, so i don't seem to be posting
we just got back from the queen charlotte islands this morning. the internet was dial-up and expensive there (not all that surprising considering that they are a pretty remote collection of islands in the pacific). tomorrow, we turn south and boat through the canadian bit of the inside passage to port hardy. once i get there, i expect the internet will be more accessable, but i have no idea whether i will be posting much. only a week left in any case...
Sunday, August 08, 2004
vancouver
dammit! blogger ate my brilliant post. of course i'm being billed by the minute at this internet cafe. my loonies are flying out of my pocket as we speak.
anyway as i was saying before it disappeared, there was a three-way tie in the vote. i blame CaTHY for not voting properly on time. at the last minute before we left, i held up the three books and made mrs. noz break the tie. #3 is the winner, the same book that would have won if CaTHY was on the ball. appropriately enough, it was the only book on the list which is by a canadian.
i'm in vancouver. the flights here yesterday were pretty uneventful. i managed to get a bit of arabic done on the flight without alarming any air marshals. today, we spent most of the day so far wandering. in fact, we basically crossed the city, going from our hotel near gastown all the way to ubc which took about 3-1/2 hours on foot. we just came back from seeing the excellent museum of anthropology next to the university.
we have a few more days here and then, on wednesday, we head north for prince rupert--the last town on the pacific coast of british columbia before you get to alaska.
while i posted a lot when i was on my uzbek trip last year, i'm not sure they will be as frequent this time around. this year i'm not traveling alone, but with mrs. noz. it is only because of her love of naps that i am writing to you now.
i feel pretty distant from politics right now. basically my posting reflect whatever i happen to be obsessing about and so (to the extent i post at all) my posts on this trip may not be as political as usual. (or maybe they will. i am the last person who should be trying to predict my obsessions)
and speaking of obsessions. i gotta go!
anyway as i was saying before it disappeared, there was a three-way tie in the vote. i blame CaTHY for not voting properly on time. at the last minute before we left, i held up the three books and made mrs. noz break the tie. #3 is the winner, the same book that would have won if CaTHY was on the ball. appropriately enough, it was the only book on the list which is by a canadian.
i'm in vancouver. the flights here yesterday were pretty uneventful. i managed to get a bit of arabic done on the flight without alarming any air marshals. today, we spent most of the day so far wandering. in fact, we basically crossed the city, going from our hotel near gastown all the way to ubc which took about 3-1/2 hours on foot. we just came back from seeing the excellent museum of anthropology next to the university.
we have a few more days here and then, on wednesday, we head north for prince rupert--the last town on the pacific coast of british columbia before you get to alaska.
while i posted a lot when i was on my uzbek trip last year, i'm not sure they will be as frequent this time around. this year i'm not traveling alone, but with mrs. noz. it is only because of her love of naps that i am writing to you now.
i feel pretty distant from politics right now. basically my posting reflect whatever i happen to be obsessing about and so (to the extent i post at all) my posts on this trip may not be as political as usual. (or maybe they will. i am the last person who should be trying to predict my obsessions)
and speaking of obsessions. i gotta go!
Friday, August 06, 2004
via the invisible library, i found this chart, comments, and timeline about the correlation between bad news for the administration and past terror alerts.
the chart is a little messy--individual polls fluctuate, even as there is a general downward or upward trend in bush's approval rating. by my reading, at least, it seems like there is a pretty clear pattern of alerts coming a few days after bad news and negative poll results. but the most striking pattern is how the frequency of alerts has increased dramatically since the iraq war began. so much for making us safer.
the chart is a little messy--individual polls fluctuate, even as there is a general downward or upward trend in bush's approval rating. by my reading, at least, it seems like there is a pretty clear pattern of alerts coming a few days after bad news and negative poll results. but the most striking pattern is how the frequency of alerts has increased dramatically since the iraq war began. so much for making us safer.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
vote
for the first time all week, i left my office today feeling like things were almost under control. i've had a crazy busy week, but its almost over now and then i get to disappear off to vacation for two weeks. bloggable rants haunted me several times over the past few days. but alas, they only hit me when i didn't have time to do anything about it. and so, like more potential posts than i care to think about, i will probably never write them.
in the meantime, i have a task for you, my 1 or 2 remaining readers who managed to stick out this dry spell of no posting. i'm bringing two books with me on my vacation. before i leave, i'm always tempted to bring more, but once i go i end up writing more than i read. so the past few trips i have tried to limit myself to 1 book per week of travel. i've already picked one book that will go with me, i need you to vote on the other one. there are 6 books on my "to read" shelf. i want to, and will eventually, read all of them. one is the one that i have already decided to bring with me. the first sentence of the other 5 are as follows (in no particular order):
1. "It started with the Catalogue of Obsolete Entertainment."
2. "One thousand B.C.E., King David, sweet singer of Israel, bought the heart of Jerusalem from Aravnah the Jebusite."
3. "If I squint, tilt my head, and shut my left eye, all I can see out my window is 1932, straight down the lake."
4. "She woke at midnight."
5. "We perceive light with our eyes; we measure it with our instruments."
so which one should i bring?
in the meantime, i have a task for you, my 1 or 2 remaining readers who managed to stick out this dry spell of no posting. i'm bringing two books with me on my vacation. before i leave, i'm always tempted to bring more, but once i go i end up writing more than i read. so the past few trips i have tried to limit myself to 1 book per week of travel. i've already picked one book that will go with me, i need you to vote on the other one. there are 6 books on my "to read" shelf. i want to, and will eventually, read all of them. one is the one that i have already decided to bring with me. the first sentence of the other 5 are as follows (in no particular order):
1. "It started with the Catalogue of Obsolete Entertainment."
2. "One thousand B.C.E., King David, sweet singer of Israel, bought the heart of Jerusalem from Aravnah the Jebusite."
3. "If I squint, tilt my head, and shut my left eye, all I can see out my window is 1932, straight down the lake."
4. "She woke at midnight."
5. "We perceive light with our eyes; we measure it with our instruments."
so which one should i bring?
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
lame
this blog neglect is getting out of hand. i keep meaning to blog. i got lots of things to say, but my schedule's just been packed (at least my schedule if you excluse my daily KoL fix)
we leave for vacation on saturday and so all the crap that i need to do before hand, both at home and at work, has been crammed into this week.
tomorrow, insha'llah, i will get things under control at work and then everything else should fall into place. maybe i will blog more then. or maybe i won't and i'm just stringing you along in a pathetic attempt to keep my hit count up when i don't deserve it. who's to say?
we leave for vacation on saturday and so all the crap that i need to do before hand, both at home and at work, has been crammed into this week.
tomorrow, insha'llah, i will get things under control at work and then everything else should fall into place. maybe i will blog more then. or maybe i won't and i'm just stringing you along in a pathetic attempt to keep my hit count up when i don't deserve it. who's to say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)