No Russ for the weary

I should probably say something about the election. In general, the results weren't too surprising. The Republican gains were predictable and enabled by Bush's dismal approval ratings. Back in 2006 and 2008, many conservative districts voted for Dems simply as anti-Bush backlash. It is only normal that they would revert to their prior conservative leanings once the wind started blowing the other way. Yawn.

The real surprise to me was Russ Feingold's defeat. That one hurt. Just two years ago, I was talking politics with an ex-pat American coworker. I was touting Feingold as America's best senator, and expressing hope that he might someday become president.

Dylan Matthews, filling in for Ezra Klein, doesn't share my opinion. He joins some others in painting a picture of Feingold as an ineffective showboat who may only be remembered for McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. Dylan links to Neil Sinhababu's criticism of Feingold for joining the Republican filibuster of the financial reform bill. Unlike the Republicans, Feingold opposed the bill because he didn't think it was tough enough on the banks. I think both Dylan and I agree with Feingold on this point. In fact, I think Dylan agrees with Feingold on a lot of points, given his post was titled Being right isn't enough. However, the end effect on financial reform was that Scott Brown broke the filibuster threat by voting with the Dems in exchange for $18B directed largely toward banks in Massachusetts.

In Sinhababu's view, Feingold failed because the bill passed anyway, and it cost his party an extra $18B to buy a Republican vote. My view is that Feingold might have reasonably expected his party to be more eager to negotiate with him rather than the opposition. Maybe strengthening the bill or sending $18B to Wisconsin would have brought Feingold on board. My finger points at the finance-industry-friendly Democrats in the senate, not Feingold.

In any case, when I think of Feingold, I don't think about campaign reform or finance reform. What I think about are his votes on the Iraq war and especially the Patriot Act. He was joined by 22 other senators who voted against the Iraq war. Despite the poplular beat of war drums, that small minority got it right. They should be commended for that. However, not one of them joined Feingold in opposing the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act passed the senate 98-1. Think about that. 98-1. In this era of terror hysteria, one senator was willing to stand up for civil rights and vote against something called "The Patriot Act". 98-1. I'd like to call it leadership, but no one else followed, so I guess I'll call it courage.

Maybe his defeat is the price to be paid for not compromising his ideals and refusing to follow the herd. If so, I still think it was worth it. I doubt that I'll ever see Feingold in the White House, but I hope to see him back in the senate, or dare I dream, as Obama's new attorney general in 2012. Even better, how about the next justice on the Supreme Court? Would the senate filibuster one of their own?

Don't act don't tell

I see that Obama hinted that he's coming around on the issue of gay marriage. At first, it seemed like great news, and like Dylan, I wondered why it didn't get more media coverage. Thinking about it a bit more, this may be a rare case where I actually agree with the media. Who cares what Obama says about gay marriage?

Obama voiced support for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense Of Marriage Act. He has also voiced support for the public option, closing Guantanamo, and increasing transparency by limiting the state secret claim. What do we have to show for it? If I was a cynic--oh, that's right, I am--I would claim that his opposition to gay marriage during his campaign was targeted to woo independent voters, and this change of mind is just an effort to fire up the base for the midterm election. Lame.

It will be newsworthy if Obama's words are ever translated into action. In the meantime, I am proposing a new White House policy--no more talking about things you're not willing to back up. I call it Don't Act Don't Tell.

Emotional intelligence is over-rated

I'm talking about the book. I just completed my second attempt to finish it. Now, I remember why I stopped reading it back in 2002. How in the hell did this book get so popular?

Daniel Goleman's painful writing immediately hijacked my brain, making it difficult to focus on his message. My problem is not with his premise, but the way he makes his case. He employs all the usual pseudo-scientific methods. He starts each chapter with an anectdotal story as if it is data. He then proceeds to bury you with snippets of information from various official-sounding reports. Like a high school student, he seems to think the size of his bibliography gives him credibility. Worst of all are his blantant scare mongering tactics. In one case, he seems to be cherry picking data to further that cause.

In his over-the-top attempts to convince the reader that today's boys are dangerous thugs and today's girls are sluts, he cites data from the CDC showing a steady 5-year increase in the birth rate amongst 10-13 year old girls. It just so happened that as I was reading Goleman's book, I came across a blog citing CDC data on 15-17 year old pregnancies. It paints a completely different picture about teen pregnancy and sexual promiscuity. I have a hard time believing that Goleman wasn't aware of the contradictory data. I think he selectively chose "birth rate" and the 10-13 age group to bolster his point. Again, I discovered this by accident, so I'd be surprised if there aren't numerous instances like this.

Goleman also irritates me with his derisive attitude toward the shy, the withdrawn, and the pessimistic...traits that he says aren't associated with emotional intelligence. He claims that outgoing optimists have the emotionally intelligent trait of being able to quickly recover from life's setbacks, whereas the introverted pessimist would dwell on them.

As an introverted pessimist, I'd argue that a lot of life's setbacks, for both optimists and pessimists, are caused by over-zealous optimists. Because these optimists don't dwell on their failures, they don't learn from them, and they charge forward, only to fail again. I'm thinking specifically about our financial markets, but the dynamics are the same for the Iraq War or the gulf oil spill. In all cases, there were pessimists who weren't comfortable with the risks, but as usual, the optimists won out. Pity about the outcomes, but no use dwelling on them.

You mosque be kidding me

When I first mentioned the mosque controversy, I had no idea this story would become so big and last so long. While the responses of most on the right and many on the left have been disappointing, it has been a useful event, since many of the idiots have been compelled to voluntarily identify themselves.

I think the mosque issue is like a pop quiz--an easy pop quiz. The big test of my lifetime was the Iraq war. That was an easy test, yet lots of our leaders failed. With Harry Reid coming out against the mosque, as long as the Democrats don't lose the senate, I would be happy with his defeat. There are too many Democratic senators who showed better judgment on these issues to have Reid in a leadership position. Ideally, the Dems would replace him even if he wins, but I don't hear anyone even mentioning that possibility.

Yet another reason to hate smokers

I just finished installing a 12v socket in the van so that we can charge and run our laptop from the auxiliary battery without worrying about draining the main battery. While doing so, it occurred to me how stupid the standard 12v socket and plug are. Back in the day, car companies implemented in-dash cigarette lighters. Of course, they designed these to accommodate big fat stogies as well. Decades later, we all have to deal with phone chargers, computer chargers, battery chargers, air compressors, inverters, and other 12v accessories with ridiculously large plugs. Auto manufacturers are smartly adding more power points throughout their vehicles, yet they stick with this stupid legacy standard. Surely they know that junior is more likely to use the back seat power point to plug in his Wii than to light up with mom and dad in the front seat, so why not a new compact 12v standard for non-smoking applications? Is that too much to ask?

Mark my Hurds

There has got to be more to the Mark Hurd story. I simply don't believe that he was fired over a several thousand dollar discrepancy on his expense reports. Let's go to the calculator!

If I remember correctly, Mark made about $20,000,000 per year. Let's assume 40 hours per week and 50 weeks per year to keep it simple:

$20,000,000/year / 50 weeks/year / 40 hours/week = $10,000/hour!!!

So, the HP board knowingly paid Mark $10,000 per hour, yet they're willing to make a big stink, and allow their stock to tank, over what amounts to a couple hours worth of Mark's time? After he had offered to pay it back? Hmmm...something doesn't add up here, and it's not my math.

I suppose I could be magnanimous and assume that the board is just so ethically principled that the amount of money involved was irrelevant in light of the violations of HP's Standards of Business Conduct. I know, I know. That is so absurd that I am embarrassed to have even written the words.

Whatever is going on here, I just hope the curtain doesn't get pulled back too soon. I want the California voters to be reminded of what great people ex-HP CEO's are, but not just yet.

360 with an Afghanikiwi tow truck driver

While we were holed up in a hotel waiting to deal with our troubled van, I happened to catch CNN's 360 with Anderson Cooper. He was interviewing Republican Rick Lazio, famous for losing to Hillary Clinton in the NY senate race, and currently running for governor of NY. The topic was the Cordoba Mosque that is planned to be built a couple blocks from the World Trade Center site.

Rick Lazio, like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, and many other idiots, is pretending to outraged for political gain. Lazio says the group's imam, Feisel Abdul Rauf, should be investigated to determine who is funding the project. Of course, investigating private citizens who aren't breaking any laws isn't something we normally do without probable cause. However, Lazio thinks we should make an exception because Rauf once said that America was an accessory to the crime of 9-11, a victim of foreign policy blowback.

Cooper weakly pushed back on Lazio, but I was yelling at him through the TV on the other side of the planet to bring up that Osama bin Laden was funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was on the CIA payroll and later attacked the USA. That is a textbook example of blowback. Is Anderson Cooper ignorant about this? Is Rick Lazio, or does he just think that speaking a verifiable inconvenient truth is grounds for investigation?

The next day, we had our van towed to the mechanic. Guess where our tow truck driver was from...Kabul! His entire family fled to New Zealand 20 years ago in the aftermath of the war with the Soviet Union. As we were discussing the current state of affairs in Afghanistan, without prompting, he lamented all the trouble bin Laden brought to Afghanistan and mentioned that bin Laden was on the CIA payroll. Hey CNN, maybe you should get in touch with this guy. He's at Discount Towing in Auckland. Be warned though--he only takes cash.