FILM: The Bubble

We had enjoyed gay Israeli filmmaker Eytan Fox's previous film Walk on Water, so we were eager to see his new one, The Bubble (or "ha-Buah" in Hebrew). It is a vivid and moving view of life in Israel, as seen through the eyes of three young friends who share an apartment in Tel Aviv, and the dramatic chain of events put into play when one of them falls in love with a Palestinian. The opening sequence shows a West Bank checkpoint, and the tension of Israelis imposing necessary security measures on Palestinians entering into Israel, who suffer hassles, indignities, and sometimes worse, even those who are innocent. This serves as a checkpoint of perspective against the lives of the protagonists in Tel Aviv, where they are relatively insulated from danger, and can pursue liberal activism, hang out in trendy cafes, dance to good music (the film has a great soundtrack), and live their "Sex In the City"-style personal dramas. This is life in "the bubble". After Ashraf, the Palestinian boy, hooks up with Noam (one of the flatmates), he assumes an Israeli identity for a while, but must eventually return to his family in Nablus, providing a view into a very different life in the West Bank. The bubble eventually bursts in unexpected and dramatic ways, as the relationship between these star-crossed lovers unfolds. The characters and events in this film obviously carry heavy political symbolism, but they don't collapse under its weight. The filmmaker keeps the characters real and believeable, and there are only a few plot/character points molded for allegorical necessity that require much willing suspension of disbelief. We found ourselves swept up by the story, enlightened by a glimpse of the tension underlying daily life in Israel, and the realization that we here in America are truly the ones living in a bubble.

Some Calculating, Some Ignorant, All Pandering

Two different candidate quotes on page 14 of this morning's LA Times were the sort that made me want to retort. First, I see the headline "Clinton rejects raising age for Social Security benefits". Apparently, this is yet another Clinton gambit to position herself as "more experienced" than Obama. (Ironically, when it was the nuclear kerfuffle, Clinton chastised Obama for taking options off the table, but with Social Security, he's apparently naïve for leaving things on the table.) According to the article:

Clinton aides drew attention to a television interview Obama gave in May, where he refused to rule out raising the retirement age or boosting payroll taxes to ensure Social Security remains solvent over the next few decades.
"Everything should be on the table," Obama told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in that interview.

In her speech, Clinton took the position that certain solutions should be off-limits.

"I'll tell you, putting everything on the table is not the answer," she said. "Raising the retirement age is not the answer. Cutting benefits is not the answer."

This is just plain pandering. Clinton is a smart wonk, and she's undoubtedly aware of the dimensions of the Social Security disaster-in-waiting. There are only three ways to address the problem: have workers pay more (raise taxes), have retirees get less (reduce benefits), or change the ratio of workers to retirees (raise the retirement age). While it's unpopular to talk about cutting benefits or raising the retirement age, that's frankly what needs to be done. I'm much more impressed with Obama, who is willing to tell us what we need to hear, than Clinton, who, like most politicians, is just saying what she thinks we want to hear. (Sure, Clinton was addressing the AARP. But Obama isn't afraid to address hot topics, regardless of the context of his speech, as he showed earlier in the year when he spoke about merit pay in addressing the NEA.)

Then in the next story, I read about Fred Thompson's ignorant comments about same-sex marriage:

Denouncing judges in Iowa, Massachusetts and other states for decisions opening the way to same-sex marriage, Thompson called for constitutional amendments to curb judges' power to do so.

"What we're seeing here is a totally judicially created problem," he told a crowd in Sioux City.

"You know how many states have affirmatively approved gay marriage? State legislatures? Zero."

Um, better check your facts, Fred. Although it's been vetoed by the governor, the California Legislature has approved same-sex marriage not just once, but twice, as of yesterday. (Of course, Thompson might be excused for not knowing about yesterday's news, if other newspapers buried it as the LA Times did.) In Massachusetts, although gay marriage was ushered in by their high court, it has been effectively ratified by the legislature in voting down a proposed amendment to override the court decision.

Two examples of pandering. Clinton knows better. Thompson is just ignorant. Either way, these illustrate why Obama looks so refreshing.

Restroom Round-Up

What to think about Senator Larry Craig's "disorderly conduct" in the airport men's room? I admit I felt some schadenfreude(*) at seeing such a die-hard anti-gay legislator suffer such an ironic fall. (The man scored a complete zero on the HRC gay policy report card. That's not just incidentally anti-gay, that requires real focus.) But the episode elicits a complex mix of reactions.

Is Craig guilty? You bet. His immediate reactions unquestionably belie his guilt. There are a number of unbelievable aspects to Craig's version of the story. For example, he says he has a "wide stance" when going to the bathroom, and may have unknowingly put his foot into the next stall. Right. I don't think anyone has that wide of a stance. Moreover, Craig wasn't standing, he was sitting. But the real clincher for me was his immediate reaction when the officer flashed his badge and asked him to leave. Craig said "No!". Think about that. An innocent person would never have said "No!", they would have said "Huh??". But as soon as Craig saw the badge, he knew exactly what he was being busted for. Why? Because he knew what he was doing in that restroom, and it wasn't the nominal innocent purpose. And then this business of the guilty plea, hoping to make it go away quietly, without even talking to an attorney? Is that the reaction of a falsely accused Senator? I think not. Why on earth would Craig have attempted to just handle this himself without consulting with legal and political advisors? There's only one reason. He was scared to death to talk to anybody about it. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Was there really any crime committed? I don't think so. While I'm certain that Craig's intentions for using that restroom are everything that he's denying, I don't see how that amounts to a crime. What he is being accused of is sticking his foot and his hand slightly into the next stall. While most would find this behavior bizarre and off-putting, I doubt most would view it as criminal. The charge behind the charge comes from the meaning behind these coded rituals, making them something akin to winking at someone. But is winking a crime? Insofar as these actions were coded communication, they were a more subtle equivalent of of going up to someone in a restroom and baldly saying "you're hot, I'd like to give you a blow job". But even that, while many would find it quite disturbing, is not criminal. Freedom of speech, you know. One might argue that Craig was looking to have sex right there in the public facility, which would be illegal. Admittedly, but things never got that far, did they? Perhaps in Minnesota they do things differently, but generally one can't be charged for something one merely intends to do, but doesn't actually follow through with. Making a larger point, Arianna Huffington asks whether such sting operations aren't an obvious misallocation of law enforcement resources (especially in an airport, where far more ominous potential crimes weigh heavily on all our minds).

Is Craig a victim of anti-gay animus? Indeed he is. The double-standard is painfully apparent. We have the contrast in Craig's fellow Senator, David Vitter, who just a couple months ago was exposed as having used the services of a prostitute in DC. Apparently, heterosexual prostitution is a forgiveable sin, as nobody is looking for Vitter to resign. But what Craig did was "so reckless and repulsive as to demand an immediate exit" (in the words of Hugh Hewitt). This contrast has been pointed out, and various excuses are offered, such as that no charges have been brought against Vitter, or that Vitter's offenses were years ago. But let's cut the crap. This is about the gay stigma. What has been Craig's most vehement public denial? "I am not gay." Note that he seems far less concerned with countering charges that he has been having sex outside of marriage, or engaging in extra-marital affairs via particularly seedy avenues. One gets the distinct impression that if Craig could somehow trade his peccadillo for Vitter's, he'd put his name on the DC madam's list as fast as you can tap your foot. (Hilary Bok also is right to point out the double-standard of men vs. women suffering sexual harrassment.)

What's the appropriate Christian response to this sort of thing? I think we saw that last year with Ted Haggard. He confessed (eventually), and he was forgiven by his family and church, not rejected by them. Contrast that with Craig, who is embracing denial, and the likes of Mitt Romney, who quickly threw Craig under the bus. Bill Clinton (who knows a thing or two about peccadillos) was far more charitable: "Well, first of all, I think we ought to recognize that this is a very traumatic time for him and his family. And whatever happens or doesn't, most of his political career was behind him. So whatever your party, we should be hoping that he and his family can work through this in a way that leaves them as whole as possible. I think that that is more important than the politics of this."

(*) If you don't know what schadenfreude is, then you need to go see Avenue Q.

A Wisconsin Boy Dreams of Marriage

Excellent editorial in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel last week written by a high school senior. Money quote:

I believe in the sanctity of marriage; in fact, it's a tradition I aspire to emulate. For me, marriage is more than just a word; it's the embodiment of an idea to which I am deeply loyal. Marriage sanctifies the love and commitment that form the basis of a strong, morally upright family.
"Civil union," by contrast, is a sterile and relatively meaningless term. Those who support civil unions and oppose gay marriage, including nearly all of the Democratic presidential candidates, fail to understand that nobody views marriage in terms of government benefits.
Marriage is really about carrying on an honorable and meaningful tradition. The benefits are superfluous. The word is indispensable.

I emailed him this response:

Hi Jonathan,

I just read your editorial in the Journal-Sentinel (courtesy of link from Andrew Sullivan), and I wanted to send my congratulations to you for having the courage to speak out (and so eloquently!). I hope that you have hope in equal measure to your courage. For what it's worth, I can well recall feeling very much like you did when I first came out some 25 years ago. When I first came to the realization that I was gay, I felt as if all of my lifelong dreams of family and marriage were torn to shreds in front of my face, with nothing to replace them. It took a while for me to integrate a new dream, very similar to the old one, informed by all the same values I was raised with, but with another man instead of a woman to share my life with. Now, though we lack state recognition, I have a very wonderful husband and six happy years of being married. We had a relatively traditional wedding, exchanging vows surrounded by family and friends. It can happen -- it will happen for you, and by the time it does, you may even be able to get that wedding license. In the 25 years since I came out, I have seen amazing changes in America's acceptance of homosexuality. There's still a ways to go, but we're moving in the right direction, and there's no turning back. Know hope.

Best regards,
Tom Chatt

Lying About Leaving

As should be clear from the previous post, I'm not sorry to be saying goodbye to Alberto Gonzales, perhaps the worst Attorney General we've ever had. However, I do feel compelled to cut him some slack from a particular charge that is being bandied about. It seems that reporters were asking over the weekend whether Gonzales was going to resign, and Gonzales, thru his press secretary, denied the rumors, even though they were in fact true. I read blogs that complained about him "going out appropriately with one last lie", and even the veteran reporter Daniel Schorr centered his commentary today on this lie as an epitomy of the dishonor we've sunk to expect from government officials. While I am appalled as anybody at Gonzales' dishonest testimony to Congress, in this particular instance, I just don't get what's wrong. This is what anybody does when leaving a job, and it seems to me completely standard, above-board protocol.

If you're leaving a job, you have some private conversations about it with your boss, and if your leaving might be the cause of any disruption, you agree with your boss when and how you're going to break the news to everybody else. If somebody happens to ask you prematurely whether you're leaving, you don't just jetison the plans you've made about the timing of your departure announcement. If you're particularly skillful, you might adroitly evade the question. (Note that Gonzales has not proven himself skillful in this manner.) Since a clumsy evasion may be taken as an admission, to be safe, it may be best to deny what you know to be true. It's a lie to be sure, but a harmless one, since the truth will come out in due time. Sometimes lying is a necessary part of tact and decorum. It should be noted that the person who asks such a question is being rude, since one knows a priori that it's not a question that the questionee could appropriately answer, and it puts the questionee in an awkward position. Such a rude questioner doesn't deserve an honest response.

The name of Alberto Gonzales may justly be piloried for a great many injuries to the reputation of the US Government, but denying on Sunday what he announced as planned on Monday is not one of them.

Rats From A Sinking Ship

Hearing about Alberto Gonzales resigning so close on the heels of Karl Rove, I thought to myself, was ever the phrase "rats fleeing a sinking ship" so apt? Rove, whose achievement was to make American politics more bitterly polarized than ever, and Gonzales, whose achievement is nicely summarized by Hilary Bok:

Alberto Gonzales helped to destroy the good name of our country. He wrote the legal opinions that allowed the administration to disregard laws it did not wish to follow, and in so doing did real damage to the structure of our government and to the separation of powers. He took a department that was, by all accounts, superb, and trashed it. And by being so transparentl interested only in advancing the interests of George Bush at the expense of the laws he swore to uphold, the Constitution, and the national interest, he deepened cynicism about government at a time when we badly needed leaders worthy of our trust and our confidence.

Listening to Gonzales' brief farewell remarks, I threw up in my mouth a little when he spoke of "public service". Public dis-service, more like.

Inn Love, Maybe, But Not Inn Business

We were looking for a place to stay in the northern San Diego County town of Fallbrook, for a family event. Turns out that Hollywood couple Tori Spelling and Dean McDermott have opened a bed-and-breakfast inn in Fallbrook, and are using it as a vehicle for a reality TV show on the Oxygen network called Inn Love. I did some reading up on it, and it turns out that the place has gotten some nice reviews from those who have stayed there, though others had reported difficulty even getting a response to inquiries about staying there. Tori has been reported as insisting that the place is not a gimmick, and that they really do want to make a go of the inn business. (As all the Hollywood gossips were wagging about how she was shorted on inheritance from her late father, and on the outs with her mother, she may really be looking for an honest income.) Thinking it would be fun, we decided to check it out. As a business, their website, which for us as for most people, is the first impression, leaves a lot to be desired. There are no photos or descriptions of the inn's rooms, no address or location, no prices, not really any information at all. The one-page website has rather low-budget graphic design, and the only means of contact for more information is an email address (which is not even a clickable link). We sent an inquiry to that email address several days ago, but never received a reply. If they really do want to make a go off the inn business, they really should start with the basics. Like spending a modest amount of money on a real website. And answering their email. Color me uninnpressed.

FOOD: Murano

Props on the new Murano Ristorante on the west end of Melrose. We were invited there by our neighbors for a celebration of their daughter's graduation from The Art Center College of Design. (Congratulations, Alex and Addison!) What an appropriate place to do it. The trendy new eatery, located in the shadow of the Pacific Design Center, in the heart of LA's design district, is strikingly done, using mostly white and clean modern lines, setting off the Murano glass chandeliers in reds and classical shapes. The bar features an archipelago of low white rectangular islands and benches for spontaneous social configurations, where we mixed before dining. Dinner was hosted in a private back room, around a large square table configuration with four people on a side, a most convivial way to arrange a party of sixteen. That kind of attention to detail, not only in the visual design, but in the "social architecture", is much appreciated. In another signature "attention to detail", once everyone is seated, women in black dresses are offered black napkins in place of the white ones, so as not to get any white lint on their dress. Happily, they did not forget that restaurants are about food (one can't take these things for granted, especially in trendy glam spots like this), and chef Kristi Ritchey (lately of Pinot Blanc, Patina Group's Napa Valley venue) is doing great things in the kitchen. I started with a fresh salad of endive and water cress, in a gorgonzola dressing, accompanied by candied walnuts and fresh mission figs. It was beautifully arranged and a fine way to start a summer meal. This fresh greenery nicely introduced the earthy flavors of my spinach and wild mushroom ravioli, accented with ground walnuts and white truffle oil. The ravioli were savory and superb. I also had a taste of the perfectly-prepared flatiron steak, cut in strips full of marinated beef flavor. This fine meal was finished with a rich flourless chocolate cake, decadently topped with vanilla gelato and cherries. The restaurant's owners, Robin Gans and Sandy Sachs of GirlBar fame, along with Jeffrey Sanker of White Party fame, are experienced pros at dance clubs and entertainment events, but I believe this is their first foray into restaurants. Well done!

FOOD: Zabaglione

This evening we had a family birthday celebration at Buon Gusto, an Italian restaurant in North Hills near where my parents live. I was excited to see zabaglione on the dessert menu, a rare treat. When informed that the zabaglione had to be ordered ahead, I knew that this was the real deal and not the made-ahead pseudo-zabaglione that some places pass off. A proper zabaglione requires attention, skill, and effort to get it right, and absolutely cannot be made ahead. (Which is why so few places offer it.) Done right, it uses only eggs (whites and yolks separated), sugar, and marsala, with a lot of air whipped into it, and gently heated so as not to cook the egg yolk. The result is a very frothy custard perfumed by the sweet wine, served in a goblet and savored with a spoon. At Buon Gusto, they pulled it off perfectly, and it was divine. Bravo!

FILM: Hairspray

I have to admit I was a bit reluctant about going to see the new Hairspray movie this evening. Not that I didn't love the original film and the Broadway musical, just that I worried whether a new film couldn't live up to its inspirations. (Or that it could even live up to the charming one-man rendition of it by Mark Indelicato on Ugly Betty.) And I was also having trouble wrapping my mind around John Travolta filling the size 14 pumps of Harvey Fierstein or Bruce Villanch. Turns out I worried for naught. This new version totally rocks. It is a delightful 1950's kitsch-o-rama (haven't seen so many cars with fins since visiting Havana), and instead of being "stagey", the film takes full advantage of its medium to deliver creative visuals during the energetic numbers. The newly-minted star Nikki Blonsky had me at "oh oh oh" as she danced through the streets of working class Baltimore singing good morning and arriving triumphantly at school on top of a garbage truck. And to my surprise, Travolta gave Edna Turnblad a vulnerability that really grew on me. Queen Latifah delivered a star turn (but I expected no less), and Michelle Pfeiffer was excellently frosty as the scheming villainess you love to hate. Christopher Walken (whom I usually think of as a villain-type) was a mensch of a dad and showed some nice footwork in a charming dance sequence with Travolta. Zac Efron was perfect (and adorable!) as an Elvis-in-training heartthrob, and James Marsden (speaking of adorable) with his wholesome good looks and big white smile was a great dance show host Corny Collins. Amanda Bynes was very fun as Tracy's lollipop-sucking sidekick Penny, with the majorly uptight mother (Allison Janney). Elijah Kelley added great moves as Seaweed, and Jerry Stiller had a nice turn as Mr. Pinkey. The cast was all excellent, but I give the real congrats to director Adam Shankman who did an outstanding job of so creatively re-realizing this fun story. It was a rollicking romp for the eyes as well as the ears.

STAGE: Zanna Don't

Last night we joined a couple of friends to see "Zanna Don't", a musical being staged in one of the many tiny theatres hidden around Silver Lake. Small theatre can be hit or miss, but at only $20-30 a pop (as opposed to upwards of $100 these days for a big theatre musical show), it's worth the risk to find the hidden gems. Fortunately, LA is chock full of very talented actors and singers, so you can encounter high-quality talent performing even in a 60-seat house. In the case of the West Coast Ensemble production of "Zanna Don't", we were handsomely rewarded and consistently delighted. This show delivers foot-tapping tune after tune, propelling a whacky but engaging story that had me grinning ear to ear almost the whole time. The premise rests on the story setting in the high school of Heartsville, a wholesome midwestern community in an inverted universe where everyone is gay and heterosexuality is the love that dare not speak its name. In this world, the chess champion is the big man on campus, and being in the high school musical is way socially cooler than being on the football team. The play mines the humor inherent in its theme very creatively, with many elaborations that surprise and amuse, but never wear it down to one-gag repetition. Amidst the laughs, a couple of numbers ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and "Do You Know What It's Like?") plumb some unexpectedly serious and moving undertones about what it means to have to hide and lie about love. Prancing through this fanciful backdrop like some cross between Tinkerbell, Cupid, and Olivia Newton-John in Xanadu is the title character Zanna, whose magical mission is to make sure everyone (except himself?) finds love. That sounds over-the-top (which it is), but don't let the Xanadu reference fool you. Zanna Don't is more than just a gimmick to string together a bunch of fun tunes, and the second act surprises, not just in the denouement, but in the way it deepens.

The cast were all strong, with fine comic acting, singing, and dancing all around. Danny Calvert (Zanna) moved magically and had some serious pipes. Rebecca Johnson (Kate the overachiever) and Natalie Monahan (Roberta the lesbian with attitude) have the moves, voices, and expressiveness perfect for this kind of musical comedy. Brent Schindele (Steve the quarterback) and Brian Maslow (Mike the chess champ) were both talented and well-cast (Maslow was an understudy but we didn't feel shorted). Brian Weir, Justine Valdez, and Matthew Rocheleau complete the talented cast, skillfully juggling multiple character roles. Given the very limited size of the theatre, a special kudos to Christine Lakin and Paul Nygro for their choreography, and the backstage folks who were able to make much with little. This play has been running on Off-Broadway for years, where it probably has a bit more budget behind it, but this production successfully packs all the magic into a tiny local space. You'll find the Lyric-Hyperion Theatre on the corner of the same name, just a couple blocks east of Casita Del Campo or west of Trader Joes. Fun, fun, fun. I'd enjoy seeing it again.

Harry Potter - Finally Finished

Ah, of course. It's perfect.

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - After the Pensieve

(Semi-spoiler alert. I'm up to page 695. Read further AYOR.) I still refuse to believe Harry's going to die. I see now that that was D's plan, and I see Harry accepting it. But death will be cheated in the end. Hermione will figure out how...

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - In Snape's Memories

(Semi-spoiler alert. I'm up to page 685. Read further AYOR.) When V was sitting in the Shrieking Shack fretting about his wand, it occurred to me that Snape pulled a switcheroo when D was buried, and that wasn't the real Elder Wand buried with him. Now it just hit me - is that what's in the Snitch?

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - At Hogsmeade

(Semi-spoiler alert. I'm up to page 557.) Oh, of course! I had wondered what had happened to his brother, but then forgot about it again. Of course his brother will be able to explain a lot. And of course he'd have the same color eyes. I have a feeling I'll be thinking "of course" more than once this evening...

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - Home Stretch?

(Semi-spoiler alert. I've read up to page 553. If you haven't, read on AYOR.) I'm told that from this point on, I won't be able to put the book down. I'll plan to be up late tonight.

So what's in the snitch? Obviously it will be something important. I had been thinking it's the ring, but I'm not so sure. On the one hand, if the Resurrection Stone is still functional (even though the horcrux aspect of it was destroyed), that would be a handy plot device to bring Dumbledore back, as he's got some 'splaining to do. But my gut feeling is that the Stone was destroyed. I don't think the Deathly Hallows were meant to be united. So the Snitch's contents will be some other surprise.

A colleague asked me a question I hadn't thought about before: do I think that Voldemort gets killed in the end? Now that I think about it, no, I don't. Rowling's magical world has always had too much realism in it for that: good people die, people are morally ambiguous at times, and life isn't always fair. So my hunch is that Voldemort is largely vanquished for now, but not completely killed. Perhaps the current Voldemort incarnation is killed, but the Nagini horcrux escapes, leaving open a future return. Evil is never completely overcome, and I think Rowling would have it that way in her world.

So, on to the home stretch...

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - After Gringotts (and Sleep)

(Semi-spoiler alert. I'm up to page 553.) This book is not conducive to a good night's sleep. Even when I knock off at a not-completely-outrageous hour, I lie awake worrying and thinking about it.

A curious thing: Grindelwald's reaction to V. If Grindelwald was this great dark wizard, would he not have welcomed V? Wouldn't V spring him loose? And wouldn't G be bitter at Dumbledore, rather than trying to prevent V from taking the wand?

Along Ollivander's comments about how wands are fussy about whether they take to new masters, I wonder whether the Elder Wand feels it has been properly taken by V?

Does the last horcrux lie in the Chamber of Secrets? ("Secrets" is plural, after all.) Perhaps V thinks that Harry doesn't know how to open it? (After all, it was the diary-Tom-Riddle who opened it last time, right?)

A possible small flaw in the story: when Kreacher came to Bellatrix with info (in the last book), shouldn't V have been surprised to discover that Kreacher was still alive? And he ought to have been very curious about it (as in, how did you escape my lake?), though it would be like him to not pay attention to the abilities of "inferior" creatures. On the other hand, given what was at the lake, he should have been supremely alarmed that anyone alive knew his secret.

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - After Gringotts

(Semi-spoiler alert. I've read up thru page 553.) How will he get the sword back? I'm thinking the same way he got it the first time - he'll pull it out of the Sorting Hat. (Though I reckon that he gives it back to Griphook in the end, to keep his word, and as a gesture of respect to the goblins.)

It figures that the climax will come at Hogwarts. But what will the unknown horcrux turn out to be? I'm guessing it will be a good surprise, but not something totally new. It will harken back to some tidbit clue dropped years/books ago, and I'll think "Of course, that's brilliant."

But now there's only 200-ish pages left to not only find and destroy the horcruxes and finish off V, but to get lots of questions answered and find out what happens to everyone.

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - The Darkest Hour

(Semi-spoiler alert. I'm up to page 445. They've just heard the radio broadcast.) In the back of my mind, through this whole book so far, I keep thinking of "the darkest hour", when Britain stood alone against the Nazis in World War II, when London was being bombed, families were separated, and though the outlook was bleak, pockets of resistance kept hope alive. Rowling's not old enough to have lived through that, but those of us children of the "greatest generation" were raised on the stories, and I'm sure the Brits are especially steeped in it.

Unfortunately, our heroes have just suffered a setback. I fear the Battle of Britain is not yet at hand.

Things rattling around in the back of my mind: so what is the real story with Dumbledore's past? I expect it will be neither Rita Skeeter's spin, nor the "official" story. Did Grindelwald kill Dumbledore's sister? And what of that stone? Is it really the stone in the ring? Perhaps Dumbledore destroyed it? If D could have destroyed the ring-horcrux using the sword, how did he get his hand all blasted?

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - After Lovegoods

(Semi-spoiler alert. I've read up to page 424. Just escaped being caught at Xeno Lovegood's.) Well, several of my theories shot down. The sword wasn't in the snitch (so what is then?). The wand-thief was an unforeseeable curve ball. And Harry's got a new wand (although it's dicey). (Speaking of wands, what does V intend to do about making new ones, now he's gone and killed all the good wand makers?) Dumbledore's wand was elder wood, wasn't it? Did Dumbledore take The Wand from Grindelwald? Though if Grindelwald had The Wand, then how did he lose the duel to D? Where is Dumbledore's wand now? Is it in his grave? Will it reveal itself to Harry?

It seems the Deathly Hallows might exist. So where is the stone? Had Dumbledore found all three?

Still huge amounts to be done, but things are looking more hopeful. It feels like we've come up past the low point. So whose Patronus is a doe?

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - After Godric's Hollow

(Semi-spoiler alert. I've read up to page 350.) Oh God. Things are looking grim. Ron's gone off and now Harry's wand's broken. And there's only 400 or so pages left to find and destroy all those horcruxes, defeat V and his Death-Eaters, and right the world, not to mention tie up all the loose ends. The broken wand is frightening, but intriguing. Does he somehow get a replacement wand? (I suppose Dumbledore's may be available, if he can get it.) Though it may well be that Harry doesn't actually destroy V in a magic duel. It may be that V destroys himself, similar to how he nearly did so 16 years ago. I think Harry's got some new super-Protego charm on him given by D when he died.

And what's up at Hogwarts? The magical school refused to recognize Umbridge as headmistress, locking her out of the head office, but Snape seems to be able to get in there. And what was up with Snape "punishing" the kids who tried to steal the sword by sending them into the forest with Hagrid? That's very curious. Maybe Ginny and crew (abetted by Snape!) are finding and destroying a horcrux of their own?

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - By The Stream

(Semi-spoiler alert. I've read up to page 310. Ron has just left.) Kids, will you stop fighting! Get along! Discord is what V wants!

I reckon the sword is inside the snitch. They should be on top of Extension Charms by now. But how to open the snitch? "Opens at the close"? Is "the close" a place? I think there's a play on words here. Isn't a close a place, esp. in British English? Something to do with a cathedral or an abbey?

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - In the Tent

(Semi-spoiler alert. I've read up to page 286.) So who is the thief that Harry saw thru V, stealing something (a special wand?) from Gregorovich years ago, whom Harry recognizes but can't place. My hunch: it's the same guy that Harry saw in the photo of a teenage Dumbledore inside Rita Skeeter's book that he found in Umbridge's office. Harry didn't get a chance to read the caption, so we don't know who it was. Aberforth? Doge? Or a further stretch - Luna Lovegood's father? (Maybe what was stolen wasn't a wand, but the symbol that X was wearing around his neck at the wedding, the one that set off Viktor Krum.)

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - Still At The Ministry

(Semi-spoiler alert. I've read up to page 247.) Just thinking some more about that Trace. So how did the Death-Eaters track our heroes to Tottenham Court Road, but then not track them after that? It must have been something on the clothes they were wearing. (Recall that Harry had polyjuiced into a pseudo-Weasley, and I think he was wearing borrowed robes.) They changed into muggle street clothes, and may have lost the Trace then.

I'm also wondering whether something muggle-ish will factor into Voldemort's undoing. One of his weak spots is underestimating (or ignoring altogether) things he considers inferior (e.g., house elf magic). Given his utter disdain of muggles, it would be quite ironic if his demise was caused, at least in part, by muggle technology.

It was V's blind-spot thinking to go for Mad-Eye first when looking for the "real" Harry among the decoys. Hagrid was low on his list. Of course, we who know Harry's history knew that Hagrid was top of Dumbledore's list. That's who he entrusted to carry the baby Harry to his aunt's house 16 years ago. Did V not know that, or just not think about it? That would be like him.

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - At the Ministry

(Semi-spoiler alert. I'm up to page 247.) Not much to add here in the way of speculation at this point. Glad to see that Harry has come to good terms with Kreacher. As I've said, I think this book will be a lot about redemption. Not sure what to make of the spat with Lupin.

Some thoughts on a broader note. With anything as big a cultural juggernaut as Harry Potter, people can't help but get into what larger messages may be in there (especially with a children's book). Much has been made of whether the books are anti-Christian. I'm decidedly in the camp of those who see good positive Christian values -- like love and sacrifice -- in these books. But I've recently become aware of a different current of thought -- perhaps it's just the sort of blogs I read -- about what lessons about politics and government can be drawn from these books. My generally libertarian friends are quite disturbed about the size of the government in the magical world. Indeed, it can seem like there are few good job opportunities for witches and wizards other than the Ministry. On the other hand, the Ministry from the top has never been portrayed in the best of lights. At best, it's been vaguely benevolent though uninspiring. Lately, we've had leaders in firm denial of reality, and more concerned about fixing appearances rather than real problems. For public relations purposes, they've even co-opted the press to create false enemies, diverting the public attention from the real enemy. And some high-level government employees have been willing to employ Unforgiveable Curses, such as torture, to achieve their ends. I'm not sure I see the big government propaganda in this that some seem to fear. I'd say Rowling has moments of channeling Orwell. In the latest development, the entire Ministry was taken over by the forces of evil. And some magical folks haven't even noticed.

[A note on comments. Comments are welcome on these Potter posts, but out of fear of spoilers, I will not be reading any of the comments until I've finished the book. So comment away...]

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - In Tottenham Court Road

(Semi-spoiler alert. I'm on page 175.) I had been curious about what exactly happened when Mrs. Weasley called Harry down to the laundry, and had him pick up a certain sock under the pretense that she was sorting socks. I thought maybe that was some kind of trace so the worried mom could keep track of her kids. But I should have been more "Mad-Eye" about it. Could the Death-Eaters be tapping into Mrs. Weasley's trace? Or worse yet, is Mrs. Weasley under the Imperius curse? Is that the leak, Snape's mysterious source? That would be perfect -- her inquisitiveness about the kids' plans seemed like motherly concern, but that would be a perfect cover. Ouch. That's wicked!

It was interesting to see Viktor Krum again, and get some history on him. Good to know that even at Durmstrang, which was portrayed as a generally dark school, there is a strong culture against the forces of darkness. Will we see more of Viktor? I expect so. It will take everyone coming together to win this.

But why was Luna's father wearing that dark sign? The Lovegoods and their (only seemingly?) crazy theories certainly have a role to play too, I suspect.

This book is far more terrifying than any of the others. The "kids" are adults now, and there's no cocoon of Hogwarts around them this year, no protection of Dumbledore, nor even a safe place to sleep or rest. It's a quantum notch more frightening.

Harry Potter Partway Thoughts - At the Burrow

(Semi-spoiler alert. I've read up through page 85 / chapter 5.) Wow, things have been moving awfully fast already! So, what did happen when Harry's wand attacked Voldemort seemingly on its own? Here's my guess: In intentionally sacrificing himself for Harry, Dumbledore has placed a magical protection on Harry, similar to Harry's mother. The magic is somehow connected / channeled through Harry's wand, which has one of Fawkes' tail feathers at its core. There's phoenix magic at work here.

So how did Snape discover the plan for moving Harry? Who was his carefully unnamed source? Did he do it though legilimency? Even though I still think he's not truly on the dark side, I don't think any of the other Order members would have trusted him completely. I don't think it was just Hagrid's loose lips after some drink, as was suggested. There's a surprise lurking there.

I thought Ted Tonks was supposed to be a muggle. Though we didn't actually see him do magic, he says that he healed Harry's wounds, apparently magically. Hmmm.

Flickr as Stock Photo Resource

Since I discovered the unique photo-sharing site Flickr last fall, I have found more and more things to like about it. Recently, I have discovered its value for finding "stock" photos for projects. I had been working on a photo-biography for a good friend's 40th birthday, and while I mostly used my friend's personal photos, there were a few spots where I wanted a few other photos for particular scenes (e.g., his college campus, places where he worked, etc). Using a combination of Flickr's tag/keyword searching and its geographic searching, I was able to find some very cool photos for my purpose. I could easily drop a line to the photographer to ask their permission, and everyone was very cool about letting me use their photos for this personal purpose.

Now I find that even professionals are seeing the same utility. A few weeks ago, I got an email from a travel site letting me know they'd like to use one of our vacation photos in their Edinburgh Guide. I gave them permission, and now our vacation photo is being used to show the B&B that we stayed in on the Schmap Edinburgh Guide. Very cool!

Harry Potter Divination

Let's get this down on record before Saturday...
In eager anticipation of the final Harry Potter book, I have re-read books 5 and 6 (Order of the Phoenix, the Half-Blood Prince). I've also reviewed the thoughts I blogged as I read Half-Blood Prince the first time two years ago, and I still stand by the predictions I made then. While many readers can't imagine forgiving Snape for having murdered Dumbledore, I believe that Snape will turn out to be a good guy in the end. Despite his being a totally warped character, we know that Dumbledore has always trusted Snape. Other members of the Order believe that Dumbledore has an "ironclad reason" (McGonagall's words) for trusting Snape, even though none of them knows what it is. At one point, when Dumbledore reiterates to Harry that he trusts Snape completely, Phineas Nigellus comments from his portrait "I should think so." So obviously Snape has done something to prove himself. I think we'll find out what that is in the final book. Perhaps we'll hear it from Dumbledore himself, speaking from his portrait in the headmistress's office. It should be noted that Dumbledore tells Harry that he nearly lost his life in destroying the ring horcrux, but for his own skill and Snape's help. Had Snape wanted to kill Dumbledore, he clearly could have done it then. It should also be noted in the end of HBP, when Harry is chasing the Death-Eaters out of Hogwarts and he confronts Snape, Snape could have easily harmed Harry, but he does not. In fact, he prevents others from harming him. What really makes Snape's blood boil is when Harry calls him a coward. I think he's really angry that nobody else appreciates just how uncowardly he has been.

So if Snape is good after all, how do I explain his killing Dumbledore? I think that Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him. Dumbledore knew that it was going to happen (he knew that Snape had sworn the Unbreakable Vow), and that may have even been what Snape and Dumbledore were arguing about when Hagrid overheard them (Snape saying he wasn't sure he wanted to go through with it anymore, and Dumbledore telling him he must). I also wonder if Dumbledore wasn't going to die anyway, from that awful potion he drank retrieving the locket in the lake. Recall that Harry noticed that Dumbledore was slowly slipping when he was confronted by Draco, but trying not to show it. It may be that there was no antidote, and Dumbledore may have known as much, so Snape may even been putting him out of his misery. Recall that the note from R.A.B. found in the locket said "Dear Dark Lord, I know I will be dead long before you read this…" Perhaps RAB also knew that there was no antidote to the potion.

Speaking of RAB, I agree with the consensus that it must be Regulus Black, Sirius' dead brother. And I also concur with an excellent speculation that I read on mugglenet, that Kreacher helped Regulus steal the locket. (The enchantments protecting the locket meant that no one wizard could get it acting alone, but the boat would only carry one wizard. So having the house-elf as his accomplice is an excellent solution.) It seems a good bet that Kreacher will have more to tell us in the final book. (A confirming rumor: supposedly in editing the latest film, it was suggested that Kreacher be cut, but Rowling insisted that he must not be cut out.) Voldemort would think his locket perfectly protected by a poison potion, as he does not understand that some people on the good side will sacrifice their lives for the greater good.

I also stand by my prediction that Draco and Narcissa Malfoy will be redeemed in the end, and that will be part of the Dark Lord's undoing. In the last book, we saw that Draco was frightened and crying, acting out of fear for himself and his family. And we saw that Narcissa loves her son more than she cares about the Dark Lord, or even herself. Rather an anti-Dark emotion, that love stuff. And Voldemort's blind spot.

I expect we'll learn something more about Aunt Petunia. Has she perhaps got a little bit of magic in her? As to what we learn about Lily Potter and Harry's eyes, I have no idea.

And then there's the big question: Will Harry be killed off? Rumors are flying, and many seem to think so, but I don't. Besides the fact that I just can't imagine she would do that, there are also a few hints from Rowling that point against it. She's said that the last chapter spells out what happens to the surviving characters. She has also long said that the last word of the last book will be "scar", although she recently amended that to say that "scar" ended up not being the last word but near it. So unless somebody else ends up with a notable scar, I figure she's talking about Harry's, as in, his scar disappears, or at least never bothers him again.

So who does die? At least one dear character will die, possibly more. I just don't think she would kill off any of the children (well I guess they're not children anymore, but still). I think she will, however, sacrifice someone very dear. My guess is Hagrid.

So what happens to Harry in the end? Having killed Voldemort, he breaks Voldemort's curse by becoming the first Defense Against the Dark Arts instructor at Hogwarts to last more than a year. The school temporarily closes their last year, as it won't make sense for the kids to be hanging around classes much in the last book, but ultimately reopens, with McGonagall as headmistress and Harry and Hermione on staff. Ron, of course, becomes a professional quidditch player.

BOOKS: A Long Way Gone

Good writing is the craft of choosing just the right words, arranging them thoughtfully to form sentences and paragraphs, such that an idea or an image is planted in the mind of the reader, with the intended shades of feeling and nuances of meaning that the author intended. Great writing starts from there and goes further. In the form of a memoir, it can create a life experience nearly as vivid as if the reader had lived it himself, giving the reader insight into a life very different from his own, perhaps one he could scarcely have imagined. And great writing does this with a poetry such that every experience, no matter how mundane or how horrific, has a beauty about its description. I recently encountered such a memoir in the remarkable A Long Way Gone by Ishmael Beah. It is the story of an innocent young boy whose life was changed precipitously when his West African village was destroyed by rebels, and he was forced to become a wanderer in the jungle and eventually a child soldier in a brutal civil war. He describes the unimagineable horrors of his life in a way that makes them completely comprehensible and frighteningly real. His voice is so genuine, his innocence at the start so true, that you experience his fright, confusion, and disbelief of the surreal -- and yet all too real -- ordeal through his 13-year-old eyes and heart. And by the end, you actually understand the incomprehensible: how a good-hearted boy could be mutated into a heartless warrior, and ultimately redeemed (and why the redemption is harder than the mutation). This amazing story is told with such skill and such poetry that I kept coming back to the same thought: this young writer is another Hemingway. Beah describes the taste of food, his first time ever seeing snow, and watching a friend be shot to death beside him, all with beauty, equanimity, and a scalpel-sharp clarity, just as Hemingway would have done. I heartily recommend this book, and I look forward to other great things that will surely come from this remarkable young writer.

Make A Loan, Change A Life

I just made a loan to a cattle farmer in Azerbaijan. All it took me was a few clicks. For Nadir Asadov, this will help him buy another cow for his breeding stock. I used a neat website called Kiva. I'd heard about Kiva a while ago, and it's stuck in the back of my mind for a while. My godson is graduating 8th grade tomorrow, and it occurred to me that a Kiva gift certificate would be a nice way to get him interested in philanthropy. Kiva takes the concept of microcredit (as popularized by Muhammad Yunus of Grameen Bank, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for it last year), and uses the Internet to enable microlenders. The concept of microcredit is that there are a great many people in the developing world for whom a modest loan (say between $500 and $1500) could enable them to start or expand a small business, making a huge difference in their lives. Normal banks wouldn't touch such loans, but Yunus found that such loans can have a very high repayment rate. So he created the Grameen Bank that focused on making microloans to women in Bangladesh.

Kiva elaborated on this concept to harness Internet microlenders. For as little as $25, you can go onto Kiva's website, survey budding entrepeneurs all over the world, and pick one to make a loan to. Kiva bundles your loan with other microlenders, until your chosen borrower has met his target. You then get periodic progress reports on how your borrower's business is doing, and eventually your money gets paid back. At the end, you can take your money back, or you can loan it to someone else.

You too can become a microlender, and can help out a produce seller in Ghana or a storekeeper in Ecuador. Check it out!

Earth Bananas

I like to have a banana most mornings with my breakfast, and I also generally like to buy local or at least organic when I can. For bananas, local is out, since we're not really the right climate for it. (While some people here do have backyard banana trees, nobody grows enough of them to turn up at the farmer's market.) And at Whole Foods, the organic bananas on offer never looked that great, so I resigned to regular old Chiquita bananas from Gelson's. That is, until a few months ago, when I noticed a new display of "Earth bananas" at Whole Foods. The display explained that these Earth bananas were the product of a venture called "Earth University" in Costa Rica that was all about researching organic, environmentally-friendly farming. Not only had Earth University succeeded in growing bananas organically (which is more difficult than most other fruits due to the climate), but they had pioneered new techniques for improving their water efficiency and making more use of their by-products. And not only do these bananas look just as good as the regular Chiquitas, they actually taste better. I had never thought about much difference in the taste of bananas until I tasted these. They are noticeably richer and fuller in banana flavor. And verging on too good to be true, these bananas cost the same or less than the others. They do ripen (and thus perish) a bit faster than the regular bananas. But then real food is like that.

Score One For Credit Unions

In today's LA Times, a consumer watch article warns that using ATMs abroad may incur nasty surprise fees, sometimes more than $5 per transaction. They write: "A sampling of banks in the Los Angeles area found that each had its own fee structure for foreign ATM withdrawals. Bank of America charges $5, plus 1% of the withdrawal. City National Bank charges $1.50, plus 3%. Wells Fargo charges a flat fee of $5. Washington Mutual charges 1%, with no flat fees."

The article neglected to point out that there are better alternatives than the big banks, such as credit unions. In our travels to Spain, Scotland, and England in the past year, we made many ATM withdrawals in those countries, and were not assessed any fees at all by our credit union. On top of that, we got a consistently better exchange rate on the ATM withdrawals than we paid on our credit card transactions. (In Spain last month, a euro averaged about $1.35 from ATMs, but $1.40 on my MasterCard.)

I continue to wonder why anybody keeps their checking accounts at the fee-heavy big banks when there are much more thrifty alternatives. We keep our checking account at the Western Federal Credit Union, where we have no monthly fee, free online bill-paying, and plenty of other services. Here at home, I have access to the Co-Op Network of ATMs fee free, which includes most credit unions, and is never far away.

Writing An "Unbreakable" Code

In Dan Brown's Digital Fortress (see my review), the plot centered on the fact of the NSA having a secret massive super-computer that could try every possible combination of even very large digital keys in a matter of minutes, and thus crack any code. While it's mathematically true that any clear-text message encoded using public key encryption could eventually be cracked given enough time, that presupposes that you started with a clear-text message. In the universe of Digital Fortress, the super-computer (called "Translator") tries every possible key until it finds one that results in clear-text. Presumably it recognizes clear text by doing a dictionary check and looking for recognizable words (which, being a massive super-computer, it could also do very quickly). But what if the originally encrypted content wasn't "clear"? Suppose I had a message I didn't want anyone, including the NSA, to see. I could simply write the message in Double-Dutch, then use standard 128-bit public key encryption, and even the mighty Translator wouldn’t be able to crack it, because it wouldn't recognize when it had succeeded. Even when Translator tried the right key, it would read:
thibisibismibysibecribetmibessibage
which would just look like gibberish, so it would zoom right past it and keep on trying other keys. Brown is aware of this problem, but seems under the misconception that it's very difficult to do.

Technically, Double-Dutch would be a poor choice. The huge preponderance of I's and B's would call attention to themselves and quickly get recognized as noise (even if the cryptographer hadn't learned Double-Dutch in grade school). But you could do something only slightly more complicated, like this:
thinisthismebysegecrinetmniessngage
I took the Double-Dutch algorithm of adding two fill characters before each vowel, but instead of always using "ib", I used letters drawn from another text (e.g., the Bible). Try reading it this way:
thINisTHismEBysEGecrINetmNIessNGage
This is grade-school simple, and yet it's actually very sophisticated in that it doesn't follow any inherent cycle. The fill characters don't repeat, and their insertion points vary with the original text rather than following any set pattern. This would probably be quite enough to bring Translator to its knees. For good measure, you could compress your input using a program like "zip" before encrypting it.

Alternatively, who says that my "clear text" is even text? I could handwrite my message, scan it to a JPEG image, and then encrypt that. Or I could speak my message and capture the audio in a WAV file, zip it, and then encrypt it. Good luck to Translator trying to figure that out. It doesn't take a supercomputer to generate something that a supercomputer would be unable to solve. It just takes a little creativity.

BOOKS: Digital Fortress

Thanks to my new iPod nano and audible.com, my commute was sped along this past week by listening to Dan Brown's Digital Fortress in audiobook format. Digital Fortress, published in 1998, was Brown's first novel, and initially didn't make much of a splash. His earlier novels have enjoyed a renaissance since his fourth novel, The Da Vinci Code, put him on the map big time. I had thoroughly enjoyed Angels and Demons (his second novel) as much as The Da Vinci Code, and looked forward to Digital Fortress. Though I don't think his first novel equals the other two, the man knows how to twist a plot, and I often found myself lingering in my car even after I'd arrived at my destination, just to hear a bit more. This book is more "techie" than the other two, and while there was a European travel element, it lacked the rich (pseudo)historical detail that gave the other two added dimension. (He did still leave me wishing to see Sevilla, but then I'm a very easy sell on European travel. He didn't create the same intensity of desire as DVC left to see Paris, London, and Edinburgh, or as A&D left to see Rome.) In retrospect, it's easy to see this book as a warm-up to his later works, an early working out of characters, motives, and plot twisting.

The one real distraction for me, as a software engineer, was the inaccuracies, not only in many minor details, but in two major plot premises that sorely tested my willing suspension of disbelief. While Dan Brown is clearly fascinated with cryptography, he also has a lot to learn, and clearly didn't do his homework on this one. (Tom Clancy sets a high bar when it comes to accurate detail.) The premise of the book (and I'm not giving much away, as this comes out very early on), that the NSA has a secret massively multiprocessor computer that can break any code by trying all the possible keys, is quite farfetched. The massive super-computer isn't totally unimaginable, but the notion that it would be so hard to write an "unbreakable code" is loopy. And another key point (again not giving much away), that the NSA's most top secret computers are connected to the Internet, such that their top cryptographers can send and receive Internet email from the most top secret computer, well that's just flat-out ridiculous. Frankly, it's easier for me to believe that Christ might have had a wife and children than it is to believe that the NSA's top secret computers are Internet-accessible.

Despite these large flaws, and the fact that I was often several steps ahead of the characters (NSA's top cryptographers miss an obvious anagram?), I never had it all figured out, and Brown still had interesting surprises in store. From the very first, he knew how to write a rollicking roller-coaster of a tale.

Windows Vista Pain and Agony

I'm no fan of Macs (twice the money for half the performance, and if their interfaces are intuitive, then I've got a defective intuition), but recent experiences with Microsoft do lend some credence to their appeal. (And their amusing ads sure do hit home.) I recently bought my husband a new PC, because apparently 256Mb of RAM was no longer sufficient for someone who basically just uses AOL and IE. These days, what with Vista and all the bloatware that Windows drags along and the pervasive-ware of Windows apps (is there no such thing as a simple app anymore? must every little thing install itself into my system tray, plug itself in to my explorer toolbar, and start as soon as my system boots?), it seems a hi-speed Pentium-4 processor with 1Gb of RAM is a minimal configuration for your most basic home user. I was curious to see what Vista was like. As I expected, it's got a few cool new gadgets, but it's impossible to find anything because they've rearranged all the menus, control panels, and even the way the explorer looks and works. There's nothing compellingly better about it, it's just different for the sake of being different. (Fortunately, there's a "classic view" option on the Control Panel, at least.)

I did get it set up without too much pain, and aside from the fact that Vista is still bleeding new, and Vista device drivers aren't available for everything yet, it's been running well enough for the first month. Until today. This morning my husband calls me in a panic, saying he can't log in because it's giving him a message saying "Invalid product key - Windows activation required". Vista has a thorough security feature that helps Microsoft stop pirated copies of Windows. They spin it as a protection for the user ("you'll know you've got an authentic copy of Windows"), but of course it's really all about protecting Microsoft. For the user, all it is is something else to go wrong, and when it does, it's a royal pain in the butt to sort out. OEMs like HP/Compaq pre-install Windows and pre-activate it (which entails entering absurdly long strings of digits), sparing their customers a tedious out-of-the-box experience. Unfortunately, Vista has a bug where installing certain software or turning the machine off at the wrong time or various other innocent actions can cause Vista to lose its factory-installed product key, and to think that it's a pirated copy, locking down your computer. Microsoft recognizes this bug and offers a patch for it on their support site. Which would be nifty, except that Microsoft doesn't allow your computer to download anything from its support site unless you're running a "genuine" copy of Windows. So in other words, the only computers that will be able to download the patch are the ones that don't have the bug. How brilliant is that? We tried an option to manually re-enter the product key (a 25-character code found on a sticker near the back of the computer), which failed. So we tried an alternate option to get a "confirmation code" by speaking a 54-digit(!) code into a voice response system. That too failed, and we ended up speaking to a live Microsoft technician. After two more failed attempts, and several reboots, he was able to give us a correct 54-digit code that enabled the computer. (You think a 16-digit credit card number is easy to mix up over the phone, try a 54-digit number!) If we ever have to go through this ordeal again, I will scream.

BOOKS: The Audacity of Hope

I didn't really know much about Barack Obama, aside from the general buzz about his great speech at the Democratic convention some years ago, about how he's a "walking hope machine", and the petty controversies over whether he's "not really black" or was educated in a madrasa. But having read his latest book, The Audacity of Hope, I have to say, this guy really does give me hope. He is a remarkable combination of idealism and pragmatism. His idealism, as expressed in the title, is the hope that our politics is not inevitably doomed to a downward spiral of partisanship and corruption, that there are enough fundamental American values that bind us together as a people and that just might be channeled into support for some common-sense policies to address our real problems. His pragmatism shows in a healthy humility (what sharp contrast to our current Decider and his inner court!) combined with an openness to crossing partisan lines to seek practical solutions. His book was not packed with specific policy prescriptions, but when he did discuss policy ideas, he reminded me of Matt Miller (author of the brilliant book "The Two-Percent Solution: Fixing America's Problems in Ways Liberals and Conservatives Can Love"), genuinely listening to both sides and suggesting reasonable compromises that might actually get something good done. The book was less full of policy prescriptions than it was about how Obama sees our nation, its people, and our problems, and about the personal history that lead him to see things as he does. He is a refreshingly authentic voice, a clarion call in our current political wilderness. I am impressed and genuinely excited about him, and even though I may disagree with him on a number of specific policies, I would feel very comfortable having such a reasonable man in the White House.

Continuing the Conversation with Hillary

"The Conversation" has been a recent theme of the Hillary Clinton campaign, and despite my initial skepticism, it seems that she actually may be listening as well as talking. In response to the demoralizing comments of General Peter Pace last week that "homosexuality is immoral", Clinton was asked whether she agreed that homosexuality was immoral, and responded:

Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude. I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can.

Which of course is the old political side-step. She was called on it by numerous bloggers and community leaders, and a couple days later, made this statement:

Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love.

I was delighted to read this. These words are right and they are unequivocal, and I'm glad to see you owning them by putting them on your website in text and on YouTube in video. So, in the spirit of continuing The Conversation, I'd like to ask a follow-on question. You say you're opposed to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and you have called for its repeal. Me too. As an ordinary citizen, I do what I can, which is to talk it up in my blog, to support the outstanding advocacy of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and to write to my Congressman and Senators, urging them to take action by co-sponsoring the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1246). The bill to repeal DADT has been introduced in the House, and has 114 co-sponsors (including my Rep, thank you, Mr. Becerra!). Alas, it has yet to have a champion in the Senate. Say, Senator Clinton, aren't you on the Senate Armed Services Committee? Ahem. Your words are great, now let's see the action. What are you waiting for?

General Pace Violates Uniform Regulations

Righteous indignation greeted Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace's recent remarks that homosexuality is immoral and should not be condoned by the military. A group of seven high-ranking and highly-decorated gay military veterans demanded to know, "Does General Pace believe we are immoral, or that our service was unacceptable? Does he appreciate the sacrifice and dedication of every patriot in our armed forces, regardless of their sexual orientation?" Surely his remarks have done more to undermine the morale of the 65,000 gay and lesbian troops on active duty than any alleged morale damage that their presence could cause. It is absurd that at the same time as the military is granting a record number of waivers for admitting felons and other convicts into military service, Pace can make comments like this: "The U.S. military mission fundamentally rests on the trust, confidence and cooperation amongst its members. And the homosexual lifestyle does not comport with that kind of trust and confidence and therefore is not supported within the U.S. Military." While Pace later apologized for expressing a "personal opinion", too little has been made of the fact that to express his personal opinion in a public forum while in uniform is a violation of military code. Would it be unreasonable to formally discipline General Pace for such a technicality? So long as it is a dischargeable offense for a servicemember to wear their uniform to a gay pride parade, it would be outrageous not to discipline Pace for expressing his opinion in uniform.

What's Wrong With American Idol

Tonight's American Idol results show had us spitting at the TV with disgust. I was still smarting a bit from last week when AJ got booted off and Sanjaya went forward. AJ's "Feelin Good" was the bomb, and it's unfathomable how Sanjaya's uninspired "Steppin' Out With My Baby" was favored. No offense to Sanjaya, who's got a decent voice but not an Idol voice, and is way outclassed here. This week, it was apparent on his face that Sanjaya was expecting to go home, so he was shocked, the judges were clearly shocked, and we were all shocked when he went forward again, denying a seat to the far more deserving Sundance, whose "Jeremy" rocked. And on the girls' side, we thought it was pretty clear cut which two should be going home, and one was as expected, but our jaws hit the floor when Haley took the spot that totally should have gone to Sabrina. Her jazzy, powerful "Don't Let Go" was so far and above Haley's pallid "If My Heart Had Wings", it's just so wrong.

As I stewed over this gross miscarriage of justice, I started thinking to myself, what's wrong with American Idol. And for some reason, I started musing "what would Steven Levitt think?" Pondering the incentives and the system, it occurred to me why it is flawed. For starters, of course, it's not explicitly a search for singing excellence, otherwise it would be determined by qualified judges and not by 37 million Americans voting by phone. But beyond that, even assuming that all of the voters were honestly voting for the best performers (as opposed to the best looking, most popular, favorite song genres, etc, which is a big assumption), the one-person-one-vote system could be expected to determine the top performer, but should not be expected to determine a qualified rank order for the rest. In these earlier weeks, we're being asked to vote for the best, but the decision being made is who are the worst. Think of it this way. Suppose that 75% of the voters have reasonable taste and judgment, and 25% don't. The 75% of the voters who do have good judgment will have put their one vote toward those who truly are the top performers. But in these weeks, those votes don't matter. What matters is who got the most votes among the bottom half of the class. And those are being determined by the 25% who lack judgment. Thus, one would expect that in these intermediate winnowing rounds, the decisions of who gets sent home are going to be rocky and spurious. And so they have been.

A better system for these elimination rounds would be for people to vote for the bottom rather than the top. Or if that seems too mean-spirited (what? Idol mean-spirited?), each person should get to vote for as many contestants as are going forward.

I also think there's some amount of game theory that enters into it. I'm suspecting that an appreciable chunk of voters may vote based on song choice and genre, as there are a variety of genres being represented. For instance, there are probably a good number of country music fans watching the show (see Carrie Underwood for proof), and perhaps a lot of them don't have an appreciation of other genres, and may not have appreciated Sabrina's sophisticated rendition of an En Vogue R&B tune. Perhaps they voted for Haley just because they prefered a country song. I'm not slamming country here. I appreciate country music, and I really like the Faith Hill song. Which was all the more reason Haley was a disappointment. She's a pretty girl and she can sing decently, but we need more than decent here. Her interpretation was uninspired, a bit fast yet lacking drive, and when she got to the chorus, where the song just wants to soar, well, Haley's voice just didn't have wings. And yet she'll be back and Sabrina goes home. So wrong.

In honor of Paula, I'll find something nice to say about American Idol. Kudos to them for the highlight on charity that they announced tonight. The money that they will probably be giving toward the needy in Africa and here at home is admirable, and the attention they will be bringing to charitable efforts will be invaluable. Looking forward to hearing more about that. Charity is sweet music indeed.

BOOKS: Real Food

My friend Anne recently loaned me the book Real Food by Nina Planck, subtitled "what to eat and why". The book was a happy convergence of two interests I had been developing in recent years: shopping for food more responsibly (e.g., local produce from farmer's markets, cage-free chicken and eggs, pastured beef) and cooking and eating more healthily (with a particular eye on cholesterol and blood pressure). Thus I eagerly devoured the revelations contained in this book.

Planck's main message is that nearly everything we (Americans) thought we knew about healthy eating -- avoiding butter, eggs, and red meat, opting for skim milk and skinless chicken breasts -- is wrong. Her positive prescription is to eat "real food", concurring with Michael Pollan's advice to not eat anything your great-great-grandmother would not have recognized as food. Her diagnosis of why modern Americans suffer from so much coronary disease, arteriosclerosis, diabetes and other maladies is the large-scale replacement of "real food" with industrialized food: refined vegetable oils, trans-fats, cattle and poultry raised in unnatural crowded conditions with unnatural diets and pumped up with antibiotics and steroids, and dairy products with most of their nutrients blasted out of them and then anemically added back in.

I devoured the book, mostly because I was hungry for what she had to say. I think she makes a convincing case for most of her main arguments, with explanations suffused with the depth of her research but plainly stated so that anyone can understand them. Numerous references to medical and scientific studies give credence to some of the controversial claims, where it was helpful to know that she's not alone in making them. The footnotes and the biochemistry and leavened with pieces of her personal food journey (grew up on a farm, tried to live a "healthy" diet, but ended up with improved health when she came back to "real food"), and anecdotes of the politics of how some of our misguided conventional wisdom developed.

The frustrating part is that it's not nearly as easy as it ought to be to find "real food". You've got to hunt around for pastured beef, and "raw" dairy products are even illegal in some states (though not in California). And even with our blessings of farmers markets and Whole Foods, Anne and I are wondering where we could possibly find Planck's ideal poultry - not just free-range, but raised on a combination of grass, grain, and grubs. But we'll keep looking. Planck has got me convinced it's the right thing for my health and for the planet's.

Much Ado About Cloning

I really don't get what all the fuss is about over cloning cows in the food supply. In December, the FDA made headlines when a team of scientists delivered a 678-page report concluding that the meat and milk from cloned cows was indistinguishable from that of non-cloned cows, and the FDA issued an official preliminary finding that meat and milk from cloned animals was "safe". What surprises me is that anyone was surprised by this. Cloning is just a technique for creating something that sometimes occurs naturally: twins. Can you imagine anyone going around saying "I'd be afraid to eat the meat of a cow that was a twin. The FDA should force farmers to label such things. I want required labels that say 'This meat comes from a steer that had an identical sibling.'" Anyone who espoused such views would be considered a bit nutty, and rightly so. And cloning is different how, exactly?

Almost as long as humans have been farming, they have been seeking techniques for manipulating their stock to select for superior qualities. Selective breeding, artificial insemination, and various other assisted reproduction technologies have been employed for ages with nobody caring nor needing to care. And even cloning has been used for ages on plant stock. When it comes to our fruits and vegetables, people have long been eating clones. Surprise! Nobody noticed (except perhaps to notice the increased availability of superior produce).

I understand that some people may be ethically squeamish about animal cloning, but that shouldn't cloud objective judgment over whether such food is safe. And even ethically, the only rational argument I've heard against animal cloning is the "slippery slope" concern that it's a step too close to human cloning. In response to that, I would note that we seem to manage fairly well keeping a bright line between animal husbandry and human ethics, otherwise cannibalism and eugenics would be equally viable worries. The reproductive technologies routinely employed in agriculture would surely boggle the mind if one were to take on the misguided exercise of trying to analogize them to human practices and human ethics.

Thus I was bemused to read in today's LA Times of the spectacle of some of LA's top culinary stars gathered around a table for a double-blind taste test of cloned vs non-cloned beef, and of these otherwise very sophisticated people expressing "ick" reactions to the notion of cloned beef that one would normally expect from some country rube confronting escargot for the first time. Kudos to chef Mark Peel of Campanile for hosting the event, and to those who joined (even if with reservations). Some notable foodies refused to even have anything to do with it (the Times article names some names). In the end, none of the gastronomical luminaries were able to distinguish the cloned from the non-cloned beef. Quelle surprise.

I can understand epicures concerning themselves with distinctions between cattle raised on corn versus those raised on pasture, or cattle treated with growth hormones versus those not. Those are certainly distinctions that may have an actual effect on the resulting meat (or milk). But whether an animal is cloned or not, there's simply no basis for expecting any difference. And as the old saying goes, a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Army Welcomes Felons and Drop-Outs, Anyone But Homosexuals

Glancing at the New York Times today, an infuriating article caught my eye. "Army Giving More Waivers in Recruiting", read the headline. It should be well known to anyone that our armed forces are stretched thin with all the international operations we are supporting, with the National Guard having to be deployed overseas, and with active duty members being asked to extend and repeat tours of duty beyond what anyone ever expected. So the Army is going to lengths to staff up, and as this article tells, it is going to new lows, too. Age and weight requirements have been relaxed, minimum scores on aptitude tests lowered, and even high-school drop-outs are being recruited. In the past, a criminal record was a disqualification for military service, but last year, the DoD granted waivers to accept over 8,000 recruits with criminal records, including nearly 900 felons. So it seems the military's "unit cohesion" can tolerate thieves and felons in its midst, but just not any homosexuals. It's hard to imagine what could better underscore the sheer stupidity of the ban on gays in the military. Highly talented, motivated, and decorated servicemembers are being pointlessly discharged for being homosexual, and criminals recruited to replace them.

It's high time Congress came around to the conclusion of former Joint Chiefs Chairman John Shalikashvili, who once supported the ban, but last month publicly declared that it's time to reconsider. As he sees and says plainly, "we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job." Too bad even some of our supposed friends like Hillary Clinton (who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee) aren't doing anything about this. Fortunately, at least 123 House members have signed on to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would do away with this senseless ban.

Farm-Fresh Dining in DC

On a business trip to Washington DC last week, I had the pleasure of sampling some of DC's top restaurants featuring farm-fresh food (a welcome new trend). My first night, my friends Don and Harv took me out to the Blue Duck Tavern, a recent arrival in the Hyatt on M and 24th St NW. The menu demonstrates their commitment to fresh ingredients, changing daily, and with the provenance of each item listed, typically from farms in nearby states. My entire meal was delicious, from the delicate artichoke soup, thru the tender and juicy pork chops (from pastured Pennsylvania pigs) in a bourbon peach glaze, accompanied by a sweet winter squash puree, to an impeccably fresh cheesecake with sour cherry compote. Bites exchanged with my companions proved their dinners equally superb preparations of the freshest ingredients. All this was complimented by a marvelous Chateau Souverain cabernet selected by Don. The only detraction was a rather uninspired selection of whisky and several fumbles getting the bar order right. But it was a top-notch meal, and I would certainly be happy to return.

Another evening, I took my colleagues to Restaurant Nora near Dupont Circle, one of the first restaurants committed to organic food. I had enjoyed a meal there years before, and my return did not disappoint. Here too great care is taken in finding the freshest, wholesome organic ingredients sourced mostly from small local farms. Muscovy duck, raised on pond and pasture by an Amish farmer in Pennsylvania, made a double appearance in my meal, first in a duck liver pâté studded with pistachios and intriguingly complimented with apricot chutney and watercress, and then in a roasted duck breast, fanned out over a cornucopia of fresh vegetables cooked just enough to be bright, crisp, and flavorful. A savory cream of broccoli and ginger soup kicked off the affair, and a nice selection of hand-crafted cheeses wrapped things up in style. (Our otherwise competent server was not quite as knowledgeable about the cheeses as she should have been, but then I'm spoiled after Patina with its maître frommagier.) Not only does Nora take great care in sourcing her meats and vegetables, but she applies equal discernment in putting together an extraordinary whisky selection, offering a variety of thoughtfully chosen malts representing a variety of regions and styles, sourced from small distilleries. She sure knows how to make a good impression on the likes of me!

A Surge Without Content or Context

Listening to the House of Representatives debate the non-binding resolution of no confidence in the President's "surge" strategy gave proof to Jonathan Chait's analysis in Sunday's LA Times. Chait surveyed the arguments in support of the President's plan, and found none that had any specific content or context. They are all generic, abstract arguments that could apply to any war, making no reference to this specific situation. As Chait sums it up:

So, there you have it, the case for supporting Bush: Trust the commander in chief, don't undermine the troops, withdrawal equals defeat. These aren't arguments to support Bush's strategy, they're generic pro-war arguments. Change a few details and these lines could support Napoleon's invasion of Russia or the Crusader occupation of Jerusalem or almost any war. Generic pro-war arguments may be trite, but that's what you turn to when you've given up on reality.

If you doubt this, just listen to the arguments of the President's supporters on the House floor and ask yourself this key question: what change in the facts on the ground would take the wind out of their argument? If your argument is merely the abstract "withdrawal equals defeat", the facts of the situation in Iraq don't even really enter into it. One might infer (as Chait does) that the pro-surge crowd are making vacuous arguments since they haven't any specific fact-based arguments to make. Though having also read Nicholas Goldberg's "Confessions of an ex-pollster" in the same pages, a more cynical person might wonder whether the pro-surge supporters do have fact-based arguments to make, but just don't think they would poll as well as the generic slogans. But I'm ultimately more impressed with arguments against the surge, grounded in specific context, such as that put forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski. A withdrawal is not a great option, but at this point, it's looking better than the alternatives.