Todd Stadler's blog

Blogging on the county's dime

I had jury duty today. The following is an attempt at "liveblogging" the experience. Because I am all about the verisimilitude.

7:51am: An example I think I'll avoid: wearing shirts to jury duty printed with expletives. Bet the judge really enjoys seeing "F*** OFF" when he turns to look at the jury. (The shirt, by the way, is yet another fine cultural contribution from Insane Clown Posse.)

8:47am: The judge giving the introduction to jury duty kept using the phrase, "We ask you not to be ____ing". I really don't like that construction. Why not say, "We ask you not to ____"? Clearly, a (present) progressive judge (ha!).

10:32am: Giving out bank account numbers while talking on your mobile phone in the well-populated jury room is probably not the best idea, even if you're sure you know why the payment didn't go through.

10:58am: The man previously talking loudly about bank transactions is now loudly telling someone on the other end of his call that he would have brought a laptop to jury duty, but he worried it would be too loud — a worry he notes was not unjustified. Is this ironic performance art?

11:22am: Still haven't been called for a pool. I've never been called for one in my whole life. Is it my smell? My steely gaze? My "I think justice is a swift punch to the face" t-shirt? (Just kidding.) At this point, I'm most concerned about my laptop's battery life. And, you know, civic duty. But the electrical outlets near me don't work.

1:15pm: Back from lunch, in the jury room, and ready ... for someone to turn off that TV. Seriously, the person choosing channels has the worst taste in daytime television. Or maybe that's the nature of the daytime TV beast. But isn't there some sort of conflict of interest with potential jurors watching car-chase movies and COPS reruns? Perhaps it's at least cruel and unusual punishment?

1:35pm: Told I can go home for the day, free once again from juror obligations (such as they are) for two years. It remains that the only time I've been inside a courtroom was when I successfully mitigated the fine on that parking ticket.

I know other jurors have had to attend actual trials and deal with judges and such, but I honestly can't see why some people complain so about jury duty. For me, it remains pretty much a paid vacation day suggested by the county.

Politically incorrect carols, jokes

Julia and I were amusing ourselves by speaking the lyrics of Christmas carols (particularly the modern, schlocky ones — yes, Brenda Lee, I mean you) as if they were prose, and giggling at some of the poor word choices and awkward turns of phrase, when we came across this lyric:

Have yourself a merry little Christmas
Make the yuletide gay

Oh, that so will not fly in this day and age! You can't make the yuletide gay — the yuletide doesn't choose that! The yuletide has always been that way!

Anyhow, as I was saying, "dancing and prancing in Jingle Bell Square"? Please.

Saved by the ballot

In contrast to my previous post, I will now endeavor to write something timely and short. Well, how about timely, then?

I don't normally pay attention to what Catholics do and say because (a) I'm a Lutheran, and (b) there's an awful lot of Catholics out there doing and saying things. I can't keep track.

But a recent story in the newspaper about the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops caught my eye for what it said. Overall, the story dealt with a statement ("Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" — you can read the full thing as a PDF) from the conference about how Catholics should not forget their faith when they vote. Which is all well and good. Don't support the immoral policies of political candidates. Fine. Great.

What I have a problem with, frankly, is the faith that the Catholic bishops would have their flock follow — after all, what is the point of exercising one's faith if it is misplaced?

The bishops believe that one's salvation is contingent on what one does. Or, to quote from the statement, "It is important to be clear that the political choices faced by citizens not only have an impact on general peace and prosperity but also may affect the individual's salvation." Let's read that again: "political choices ... may affect the individual's salvation."

So, like, no pressure or anything, but filling in that oval might send you to Hell. Just sayin'.

And that would be great and all, if only it lined up with what God says. But hey, don't take my word for it. Let's ask Paul, who seems to have had a hand in writing some Bible stuff. What say you, Paul?

"It is by [God's] grace you have been saved, through faith ... not by works, so that no one can boast." Hmm, we're not saved by what we do? Perhaps that quote was out of context ...

"We maintain that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from observing the law" (that is, God's expectations of us). That also sounds like our forgiveness isn't dependent on us. But the whole first eight chapters of Paul's letter to the Romans are kind of like that. Maybe his letter to the Galatians ...

"Are you so foolish? ... Are you now trying to attain your goal (salvation) by human effort? ... All who rely on observing the law (that is, on what they do) are under a curse, for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.' Clearly no one is declared righteous before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith.'" "The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ... If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" Yeah, come to think of it, the whole book of Galatians is like that, too.

So it sounds like God's pretty emphatic about our salvation not being dependent on what we do — even voting! — but rather on what he did for us (in spite of what we've done). Which makes the following quote a bit odd:

"One of the responsibilities that I believe we have as bishops is to let our people know that the choices and the decisions that they make in their lives here on Earth do impact their salvation," said Bishop Samuel J. Aquila. "And we as bishops are really called to be about the salvation of souls."

I'd feel better about that if their understanding of salvation jived with God's.

Things I hate about the Web: immediacy

Last week, I began my popular blog series "things I hate about the Web" with a post on information glut. This week, I'd like to add to that glut by complaining about another thing I hate about the Web: immediacy.

I realize there are some high-falutin' definitions for that word (Dictionary.com suggests, among others, "lack of an intervening or mediating agency"), so let me be clear that I'm going for the painfully obvious definition here, the kind you always hated when you looked up a term in the dictionary when you were a kid — that is, "the condition or quality of being immediate". That is, things on the Web move too dang fast.

Oh, I know, that's what's so great about the Web, right? You can find out what's happening all around the globe, or in the streets of your town, all in a matter of seconds. And that's all good and well. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that the Web is amazing in its capacity to deliver information as quickly as possible.

The problem, as always, is people.

The Web can deliver information almost as soon as it happens. The problem is that people are not as capable of writing about it quite that immediately. Or, more to the point, they're not capable of matching the Web's speed while writing well.

I'll bring it back to me because, well, that's what a blog is for.

I get annoyed when a story appears on a local media outlet's Web site, only to have someone — occasionally even a different media outlet — comment that, nyah nyah, that different media outlet already beat them to the punch.

It's not that a reporter shouldn't be proud of scooping the competition — I respect it when that happens because someone's a good journalist and he's been doing good research and he simply got the story before anyone else.

But these days, scooping the rest of the media can be a matter of hours or even minutes — the same time frame (or less) that it takes to even write a story.

Given how many stories in a newspaper stem from crime reports or press conferences — that is, events for which all reporters have pretty much equal access — being the first one to publish a story on the Web doesn't necessarily mean someone's a good journalist. It just means he wrote his story the fastest. Which makes me wonder what corners the author cut just so he could have Web bragging rights. Did he get any facts wrong? Fudge any quotes? Or maybe just skipped some much-needed editing?

But enough about hypothetical journalists. I got off track — let's bring it back to me again. For real, this time.

See, I'm frequently stymied in my attempts to blog about something because I can't write quickly enough. I'll see some story online or (yeah, it happens) in a newspaper and start a skeletal blog post to remind me to flesh it out later, only later never comes and I delete the entry (or, worse yet, keep telling myself I'll eventually write it).

Now some of that is due simply to my laziness. I have other things to do — like, say, compulsively read the comments on way too many friends' or media blogs (I even created a Web service [cough] screenscraper [cough] that tracks other people's comments for me — I'll blog about it ... some day).

And then there's my verbosity. Perhaps you've noticed it. It would seem I have a hard time feeling I've truly written about something unless I've pounded out several hundred words on the subject, and those words take a lot of time to write. And edit. And compulsively rewrite. And attempt to shoehorn humor into. And undo that attempt. And so on.

But, back to my thesis, the reason my slow blogging is such an issue is that it results in my writing about matters that are at least several days old, if not weeks or months. And as an appreciater (and compulsive consumer) of the Web's super-speedy text-delivery service, I just know that talking about such ancient history won't fly. (Any more, frankly, than will super-long text like this. The Web demands fresh and to-the-point. You want old and windy? Buy a magazine!)

I mean, what's the point of having a blog deliver my thoughts at the speed of light if I'm not going to talk about something that happened today? That's why so many of my posts just deal with the minutiae of my life — there's precious little immediacy to what happens to me, and most of you wouldn't know if what I wrote about happened several months ago, anyhow.

That's one reason I don't blog about politics — I can't crank out a blog post fast enough to respond to the speed at which stories come out.

But the question I have is: should anyone be able to write analysis (political or otherwise) at the speed of the Web?

(As an aside, I want to note that almost all political blogs are nothing more than analysis. For all the blather — from the left and the right — about blogs surpassing mainstream media, there are precious few that actually do what the media does, which is to actually discover news stories with facts and quotes. In fact, most would-be-media-slayers base most or all of their content on stories written by those they would triumph over, leading me to wonder: if the blogs kill the media, is all we'll be left with analysis? And analysis without reporting to back it up? And is that a world anyone wants?)

Anyhow, analysis is about, well, analyzing. That seems obvious, until you consider that Web analysis so often isn't — there's no time! You read a story and then bam! you react to it. No time to consider alternate angles. No time to look for corroborating or contrary facts. The best you can do is lead with your (biased) instinct and hope to fit your reaction into a preconceived (biased) framework.

Which is red meat for the red-and-blue set. But rarely insightful, and even less helpful for the state of our political discourse.

To put it another way, I've heard it said that the problem with 24-hour news channels is that they presuppose that there is 24 hours' worth of news to report on each day. There usually isn't, but those channels can't admit that — who'd buy ad time then? — and they know you'll get bored if they repeat the same stories over and over (sorry, but it's true, Headline News), so they go out and dig up news that isn't news at all, but at least it's entertaining. And that's how CNN and Fox News came to be what they are today. Namely, a joke.

Given that, the problem with the Web — or at least Web commentary in the blogosphere — is that it presupposes that news can be analyzed and reacted to at the same rate at which it is now delivered. At a meaningful level, it can't (sorry, "Instapundit", et al.), and so true analysis gets chucked out the window in favor of hammering square pegs of news into your own preconceived round holes.

Or maybe I'm just grumpy because I created the skeleton for this article on November 7th, over a week ago, and spent too many hours thinking about it (interspersed of course with copious amounts of catching up on other blogs and comments on those blogs).

Regardless, I welcome your instant, ill-considered, poorly-edited thoughts in the comments.

That is not a survey

A week or so ago, I wrote an article on Portland's Safe and Sound Streets program that questioned the questionnaire associated with that project and, frankly, set the city of Portland on fire.

By which I mean it resulted in three comments, one of which was from me, and the rest from people who live well outside of Oregon. ¡En fuego!, as the Spaniards say. I'm sure the rest of the city wanted to chime in, but they were too busy.

Anyhow, I wanted to follow up on that rousing success while I was still on a roll, so today I'd like to focus on the survey aspect of the program.

The Safe and Sound Streets site has a link to a survey PDF with the following description: "Public opinion survey shows support for local funding options to tackle maintenance and safety backlogs on local streets and Willamette River bridges." But if you read the PDF itself, it pretty much says nothing of the sort.

First of all, survey respondents do not agree that things are bad with Portland's transportation system. 63% say it is pretty good or excellent (p. 6 — all page numbers refer to the survey PDF), even if the city does proclaim "Portland's Streets and Bridges are in Trouble" on the program's main page.

A cynical person might conclude the whole point of this "survey" — indeed this whole project — was to drive down that 63% by asking people about how terrible things are and how much they want to stave off the imminent collapse of all Portland infrastructure. A cynical person would ask how things came to suddenly be so bad, and why it is the taxpayers' responsibility to pay more to fix things, and not, say, on the heads of the people who have already been spending the taxpayers' money to date. But I don't know any such cynical people.

Next, the surveyors said they "presented 20 different funding package components" and "asked how important including the component would be to their support for a funding package" (pp. 7–12).

I don't know why they use the phrase "funding package" twice, given that all that section gives is a list of components people favor regardless of how they're funded. Do you want "repairs to the Willamette River bridges to increase safety"? Hey, so does 81% of the city to some degree (p. 8).

But tops on the respondents' priorities is improving traffic lights — in addition to the 81% who support "signal synchronization on major city streets to improve traffic congestion", 79% support it "to reduce auto emissions". In short, "fix the lights so I don't have to stop, but if it's environmental, I guess that's okay, too."

But who doesn't want that? In fact, according to these questions, there are only two transportation features Portlanders don't support: speed bumps and red light cameras (p. 11).

I'm sorry, but the picture that emerges isn't one of a public concerned with safety, but rather getting places fast, which is arguably antithetical to safety.

Another curious feature of this survey is that it breaks up desired features into "tiers" that, well, have little to do with the results of the survey. So it is that the "top rated" tier (p. 8) contains the aforementioned "signal synchronization" support (81% and 79%, depending on whether emissions are mentioned), bridge repair (at 81%), and "more bike boulevards to reduce conflict between motorists and bicyclists", with only 68% support.

However, the "second tier" contains two features that are more popular than bike boulevards: "focus[ing] on long delayed maintenance that will reduce future cost of road and bridge repairs" (79% support) and "matching funds for building sidewalks on busy streets that now lack them" (73%). Heck, even "construction of projects that minimized trucks in neighborhoods and more efficient movement of freight on designated streets", in the "third tier" with 70% support, was more popular than bike boulevards.

I found this whole tier thing so confusing, I graphed the support various features have and color-coded them according to the tier they were placed in:

Fig. A: It may not make sense, but it's kind of pretty

Sure, overall, it decreases from tier 1 to tier 4, but a cynical person might conclude that the tiers were assigned based on political factors, not actual support.

But enough of that. Next, the surveyors "presented 23 different transportation funding options, asked about their level of support for each option: strongly oppose, somewhat oppose, somewhat support, strongly support" and found that "none of the options were strongly opposed by a majority of voters" (p. 13).

Wait, none of them "were strongly opposed"? Why only focus on that most negative of groups? Is it because the overwhelming majority of people oppose all options to some degree?

I mean, 36% of respondents strongly opposed what I believe is the proposed plan (a $.05 city gas tax plus a $4.50 fee per household — notably placed in the tier labeled "Highest Level of Opposition", p. 14).

But then, oddly, the survey PDF fails to provide the percent of people who "somewhat oppose" the funding measures, making it impossible to know completely how unsupported something is.

Not that the results aren't goofy, regardless. How is it that

• 43% strongly opposed a $.05 city gas tax
• 40% strongly opposed a $.05 city gas tax plus a $3.40 fee per household
• 36% strongly opposed a $.05 city gas tax plus a $4.50 fee per household (all from p. 14)

That makes no sense, except that it seems that people really don't want to pay a gas tax. Maybe they think that if they pay even more with the household fee, at least the non-drivers are getting ripped off, too?

Regardless, it's fairly clear from the results that no funding options are actually popular, and most are probably opposed outright. Except studded tire fees (ooh, studded tires annoy me, too).

But it's hard to find support for the statement that this "survey shows support for local funding options to tackle maintenance and safety backlogs on local streets and Willamette River bridges." There is no support for most of the funding options, and what most people want is the lights to be in their favor. In short, people are selfish.

But then it's really hard to run for mayor on that, so let's pretend the survey says what it doesn't, that people are really concerned about this problem (they're not), and that they want to pay for it (and then tell the people that they want it, hopefully to convince them of that fact). And let's not forget the bicycles.

This hodgepodge was brought to you by your eventual mayor Sam Adams.

Things I hate about the Web: information glut

If all goes according to plan (and what reason do I have for assuming it will this time?), this will be the inaugural post in a series on "things I hate about the Web". I'm sure it'll be a hit with both of you out there, given that you've already shown your slavish devotion to the Web by accessing this diatribe via it. Sellout.

Anyhow, today's e-angry-old-man-yelling-out-loud-on-a-park-bench is about information. There's too dang much of it on the Web. And it annoys me. Let me tell you kids about it.

See, time was there wasn't much you could read on the Web. Why, in those days, you could become famous by throwing up (in more than one sense) a quickly designed Web site conceived as a way to procrastinate based in part on something you once read in a magazine ... and get famous for it! Because, you see there wasn't much else to read at the time.

But pretty soon, they started putting useful (or at least interesting) information on the Web, and things were good, for a time. But they didn't stop there — no, they kept putting more information on the Web. And more and more! Why, some of it was even trivial!

An an example, take blogs. Time was, no one had a blog. Not even the President! Then a few of my buddies got them, and I would sporadically remember to read them when they sporadically remembered to write something. And it was all pretty good. Then more and more buddies, and even some pals, started sporadically writing in blogs, and I'd forget to read them for weeks or months after they'd posted something. But that made me cranky.

So I broke down and looked into this new-fangled RSS technology that everyone had been talking about. After a while, I settled on Google Reader as a way to read all my friends' blogs' RSS feeds. And there was peace and calm once again.

But then they started slapping those durn RSS icons everywhere — you couldn't swing a cordless mouse without hitting someone's RSS feed! And, like a fool, I added 'em all to my feed reader. I had feeds from all my friends' blogs, their Flickr photos, local news sources, and even some humorous comic strips!

I had all sorts of information to read, but the thing was, I had less and less time in which to read it. Now, think about that!

But it wasn't just the RSS feeds. Everyone and his horse started microblogging on Twitter, yappin' away about their doings, transpirings, and whatnot. More information! And they posted more whatnot on their Facebook and the what-have-you. To say nothing of the actual news of the day one might be inclined to read about.

Well, it's gotten so a man can't take it no more! It's too much! Am I supposed to mark swaths of unread blog feeds as read in my feed reader? But what if there's a useful article somewhere in there? Or a comment discussion I want to contribute to? And how's a fellow supposed to comment in peace when you keep Twittering at him?

As such, I hereby ask all y'all to stop saying so much on the Internet. Just keep it to the essentials. Allow me to catch up, at least. Thanks.

Movable Type is the new Microsoft Word

When you read that title, you probably thought this was going to be a boring paean to blogs and empowered people who blah blah blah. Nope. But it still probably will be boring. Sorry.

Anyhow, do you remember back in 2003 how the British government was busted when a tech-savvy guy read the revision history on a Microsoft Word document they'd posted on a Web site? (No? Well Google News does — go read up.)

Anyhow, I bring this up because blogging software also often stores metadata (that is, data about data — in this case, information about a blog entry not contained in the entry itself). In particular, Movable Type adds a munged version of the blog title to the last bit of its URLs.

Well, that's not exactly true. What it does is create a URL that's a munged version of the title that the entry was first created under. Which might be interesting if, say, someone was improperly editorializing when they first saved the blog entry.

Like say, this story on Sheriff Giusto over at OregonLive.com*.

If you're too lazy to actually hover over that link (and boy, are you lazy!), the last bit of the URL reads: "giusto_boilerplate_do_not_publ.html". Oops. Look like someone went ahead and "publ"ed it, anyhow.

So let this be a lesson out there to those of you using off-the-shelf blogging systems. Don't put anything into your blog software that you don't want to see published.

(Hat tip: Jack Bog.)

*I feel honor-bound to point out in any story that mentions OregonLive.com, such as this one, that neither I nor anyone else likes OregonLive.com and it's a poor substitute for the paper version of The Oregonian, which is probably the point. The sooner The O ditches that horrible Advance.net template and gets a real site, the better. It has menus that still only work in Internet Explorer, for the love of Pete!

Poor Halloween

I realize Halloween is big business these days, and probably one of the major holidays of our culture's year. But I still feel it gets short shrift in the after-glow department.

Think about it — the day after Christmas is still Christmasy. In fact, in the Christian liturgical calendar, the season of Christmas begins with Christmas Day and goes on for several weeks. But while the present-mania may fade quickly after Christmas Day, its feelings and trappings hang around for some time.

Same with Thanksgiving. Most people still have the following Friday off — to say nothing of never-ending turkey leftovers — and so the Thanksgiving glow/dyspepsia lingers a bit.

Not so with Halloween. The next day is November, my friend, and that's Thanksgiving territory, so take down your suddenly-gauche cobwebs and tombstones. Yes, the candy can stay, but you find yourself wondering how that severed hand in the candy bowl was ever a good idea. It certainly doesn't belong there in November!

That is not a questionnaire

Lately, we've been getting pieces in the mail or tucked into the neighborhood newspaper from Sam Adams and his Office of Transportation about how Portland's streets and bridges are in trouble, and the city needs to increase taxes to pay for all the transportation improvements.

Of course, any time the government comes running to me yelling, "the system is broken — we need more money to fix the system," I find myself wondering what exactly the government has been up to recently and what it was spending its money on. Certainly, new funds are needed for new problems or new economic situations, but is that the case here? Transportation problems aren't typically sudden or unexpected, are they?

Regardless, the pieces we've gotten have referred us to the city's Office of Transportation Web site, where you can fill out a questionnaire on this Safe and Sound Streets program.

Except I get the impression that this form isn't designed to gauge public opinion so much as influence it. After several questions that basically ask you to consider how transportation could be improved in your neighborhood and therefore why you'd support a new tax (including the Message: I Care request to "tell us your story" — do you think anyone's story was "I get around fine because the streets are okay"?), they throw in this fact-filled preface:

Regardless of the importance of this issue, raising taxes and fees is always an uphill battle. This effort to save lives and save money will not move forward without strong community support. [Emphasis mine]

before asking these unbiased questions:

Do you support the possible funding package?

If yes, what are the issues that make you the most supportive of this effort?

If no, what are the issues that make you not supportive at this time? [Emphasis mine]

Gee, is there something I'm supposed to think after reading this? It's not ... quite ... obvious ... enough. Thankfully, I think I figured it out while noticing that almost the same set of options is available on the page where you can give a Safe and Sound Streets Project endorsement, whatever that is:

I support the Safe and Sound Streets Project

I do not support the Safe and Sound Streets Project at this time

I am still uncertain and would like additional information [Emphasis mine]

Hey, I'm thinking about supporting this program! We all should support this program! In time, we will all support this program!

And those questions are all good and well, but what about the question I really want to answer, the one where I pick from the following options:

I think Sam Adams is awesome and want him to be my mayor!

I do not yet realize Sam Adams is awesome, though I want him to be my mayor!

I knew Sam was awesome, but tell me again why that would make him an awesome mayor as well!

I need more information to learn why Sam Adams and his inevitable mayoral reign are awesome!

Oh, did I mention that Sam Adams, city councilor and head of the Office of Transportation, is running for mayor? Huh, darned if all this hubbub about the Safe and Sound Streets Project hasn't got me thinking about him.