Jumat, 05 April 2013

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

How About Some Amateur Rock Drumming? Say Yes, Please!

Posted: 04 Apr 2013 07:37 PM PDT

If you have a couple hours to kill one evening, click over to YouTube and search for song covers made my amateur musicians. Sure, you’ll see a lot of junk, but if you’re patient and your search-fu is strong, you’ll find some amazing performances. I went YouTube prospecting a few weeks ago and found a few drumming videos that I’ve gone back to watch several times. They’re that good!

Okay. First up, a six year-old kid playing Rush’s “Tom Sawyer”. No, don’t you dare skip over this one. Keep in mind he’s six and trying to play a song that vexes even the greatest living drummer in the explored galaxy.

Like that? Here’s another drum cover of the same song, edited a bit for time, by a young lady whose videos fascinate me. Her name is Meytal Cohen and she’s out in Los Angeles, by way of Israel. She is very, very good and obviously loves what she does — an irresistible combination.

Yes, I noticed she’s a knockout. Oddly enough, the more I watched her play, the less I noticed what she looked like. Skill and enthusiasm holds my attention a heck of a lot longer than a cute smile. Check out how well she handles Rush’s instrumental “YYZ”. Also, go ahead and try not to be blown away at the 2:14 mark and utterly charmed at the 2:20 mark. I dare you. She’ll get your attention back on the drums at 2:30.

One more from Meytal, who I hope gets into a band that can showcase her incredible chops very soon. This one’s Zeppelin. “Black Dog”. Oh, I see your skepticism over there. Yes, you giving me the “oh please!” look right now. Peart and Bonham, you say? Hell yes, I say. She doesn’t have Bonham’s heavy bass drum foot, but she has his patience and his rock-solid tempo, which is what you need to handle Zeppelin. Also, she sings along silently to some of the vocals, a musician thing with which I identify strongly. Very strongly, actually.

No go forth and find your own amateur cover tune goodness!
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:

Kamis, 04 April 2013

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

Denial Isn’t Just a River in China…And Neither are 28,000 Others

Posted: 03 Apr 2013 08:39 PM PDT

China River of FilthChina’s rivers are disappearing. After a three-year survey by the nation’s Ministry of Water Resourses, China has some 28,000 fewer rivers than everyone believed it had. Of course, the previous figure of roughly 50,000 was an official government number, and we all know we can trust the Chinese government to dispense accurate and timely information about as often as the History Channel dispenses programs that don’t involve Bigfoot, Nostradamus, Ancient Aliens, Nazis, or the Illuminati. Perhaps there really were that many rivers in China and perhaps the number was a bit smaller. Regardless, what the study revealed is an ecological disaster if that 50,000 had been 40,000 or even 30,000.

Predictably, the Chinese government has blamed the loss other people — the bureaucrats who came before them or that Ol’ Debbil Climate Change. The truth, however, is that most of the fault lies squarely on their stupid adherence to the deadly precepts of socialism.

According to the South China Morning Post, officials attributed the decline to global warming and outdated mapping techniques, saying previous estimates were based on incomplete topographical maps from the 1950s. Experts, meanwhile, say there are more direct factors at play — namely, explosive economic development and poor environmental stewardship.

Ma Jun, director of the Beijing-based Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, acknowledges that updated mapping techniques could explain some discrepancies in river estimates, though he notes that the government’s findings corroborate those from independent studies.

“Our research has shown that in some areas, especially in north China, rivers are drying up or turning into seasonal rivers,” Ma said in a phone interview with The Verge. There are several explanations for this phenomenon, including deforestation and, to a less certain extent, climate change, though Ma says the two primary catalysts are pollution and overpopulation.

Together, they form a potentially disastrous combination. China’s mushrooming population has added extra strain to its limited water supply, while the country’s rampant industrialization has left many rivers contaminated.

A couple notes here. It’s interesting the Chinese government notes those erroneous maps date back to the 1950s, because that’s the decade of the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in roughly 30 million dead thanks to the famine caused by Mao’s unshakable belief that he knew best. Mao’s bureaucrats couldn’t make maps because they were busy trying to turn an agrarian economy into an industrial economy using every ridiculous collectivist notion they could grab. Afterwards, the government could have produced accurate maps but it spent the next two decades of the Cultural Revolution slaughtering its way across the countryside. Instead of governing an intelligent, industrious population and watching China grow into a prosperous and happy nation, Mao and his band of socialist butchers turned it into a paranoid, poor country whose economy is built on intellectual theft and cyber-banditry.

And that’s where we are right now. Climate change isn’t to blame for China’s missing rivers. The tyrants in Beijing caused the problem. Look to the mega-dams that have displaces millions, re-routed rivers, and destroyed entire ecosystems. Look to the lack of laws that protect the people or the environment, even though the government has all the power to enforce any environmental law it wishes. Despite all the power concentrated at the very top for more than half a century, China is not a progressive utopia but a horror show.

Could we perhaps take a lesson from China and put the brakes on the meddling know-it-alls who, like the tyrants in Beijing, think they know how to run a country all by themselves? I know we’re a long way from Great Leaps Forward and river disappearances but I’d really like to keep as much distance as we can between us and the failures of socialism. America is pretty great and China isn’t. There are reasons for both. Let’s remember them, huh?

(Photo Credit: AdamCohn on Flickr)

The Rookie’s Guide to H.P. Lovecraft, in 1500 Words or Less

Posted: 02 Apr 2013 02:08 PM PDT

Young Lovecraft in GlassesIf I had to pick a favorite horror author, I’d go with Howard Phillips Lovecraft. His tales of horror, most often set in small-town New England (with the occasional jaunt to the Antarctic, New York City, or The Dreamlands), are enjoyable little morsels of creepiness. Lovecraft was one of several authors such as M.R. James, Arthur Machen, Robert Bloch, and Robert E. Howard who cranked out short stories and novellas for various literary magazines (and, if they were fortunate, published novels) whose work was heavily influenced by those  Gothic horror authors before them such as Lord Dunsany, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Edgar Allen Poe.

Lovecraft was not exactly a paragon of manly virtue nor was he a particularly nice man. A self-avowed racist, many of his stories contain language you simply would not get past an editor today. As an example, see the name of the main character’s cat in The Rats in the Walls. It’s tempting to say he was a product of his time, and that may be true to an extent, but Lovecraft went a bit over the top when it came to dislike for those of other races (and mixed race relationships, which is odd considering he married a Jewish woman).

The Basic Setup and Where to Find the Stories

The outline of the classic Lovecraft story is this: The protagonist, who is usually a young and curious man with academic leanings comes across something  – an old statue, a scrap of old manuscript, a local legend, a forgotten house, a curious medical story — that piques his interest. He begins to investigate the thing that grabbed his attention only to find it is the tip of a mountain of legend and lore that goes back farther and reaches deeper into the shadows of forbidden knowledge than he reckoned. Usually, at some point, another character shows up to warn him off the hunt, but the warning goes unheeded. As the investigation proceeds, the protagonist becomes increasingly disturbed by what he uncovers but is unable to stop. His search often leads him well off the well-traveled roads into towns where the locals aren’t quite right and he’s seen as an interloper. Eventually, he reaches the core of the mystery as which poi–AAAH! NAMELESS AND MIND-BLASTING HORRORS FROM BEYOND TIME AND SPACE! *gibber drool slurp twitch*

Okay, his stories don’t all end in a loud minor chord but a good number of them do, which is part of their appeal. Much like Stephen King’s finest novels The Shining and Pet Sematary, we know fairly early on in the story that a Lovecraftian protagonist is going to meet with a horrible end, but we can’t turn away. We need to see where they mystery leads as much as he does, but we at least have the confidence that our brain won’t end up excised by alien insects and prepared for transport to their cold and light-less home.

Probably.

Because Lovecraft was not possessed with much business sense and died without heirs, his works have passed into the public domain. You can read them all for free on the web at the H.P. Lovecraft archive or download a well put-together compilation of his works for your e-reader of choice. If you choose the latter, please thank CthulhuChick for her hard work.

Now that you have the stories in front of you, click on the link or open that book in your e-reader and…

Holy Crapweasel! So. Many. Stories.

You noticed that, too? Lovecraft was a prolific author and the sheer number of stories are enough to put anyone off. Where in the world do you start? Should you read chronologically (and chance being put off good stories by a few early clunkers)? Are there ongoing themes? I’ll be honest, though I’m a Lovecraft fan, I haven’t read everything he wrote and I probably won’t because some of it, his poetry particularly, isn’t really my speed. That said, you may really dig it and if you do, dive in!

Really, you don’t need to read everything. We’re going to use the Table of Contents to send us straight to the good stuff and, after you’ve read those, if you want to cover even more ground, you can. The important thing to remember is that most of Lovecraft’s stories are short. You can read them in one sitting. His novellas are good for a few hours of lights-out, hunker under the covers, keep a baseball bat handy in case something is hiding under the bed or behind the closet door reading.

Before I send you to the good stuff, though, let’s do a bit of necessary culling.

Set These Aside for Later

We’ve already set aside the poems (unless, of course, you love poetry, in which case start there and come back in a couple months). Now, let’s lay aside the stories that comprise the Dream Cycle (which you can find in one inexpensive volume here). Lovecraft wrote an entire category of stories that revolve around “The Dreamlands”, a separate dimension the protagonists could only access through their dreams. While I like the Dream Cycle stories, they’re…different. You may want to tackle them after you get a good feel for Lovecraft’s vibe. I’ve taken this list from the Dream Cycle Wikipedia page, to which you can refer if you’re curious.

  • “Polaris”
  • “The White Ship”
  • “The Doom That Came to Sarnath”
  • “The Cats of Ulthar”
  • “Celephaïs”
  • “Ex Oblivione”
  • “From Beyond”
  • “Nyarlathotep”
  • “The Quest of Iranon”
  • “The Other Gods”
  • “Azathoth”
  • “Hypnos”
  • “What the Moon Brings”
  • “The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath”
  • “The Outsider”
  • “The Silver Key”
  • “The Strange High House in the Mist”
  • “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward”
  • “The Dreams in the Witch House”
  • “Through the Gates of the Silver Key”

There are two exceptions to the list . “The Dreams in the Witch House” is a solid story apart from the Dreamlands component and it reads more like a conventional Gothic horror story than, say, “The Silver Key”. Put that one back in the “Read sooner than later” bucket. “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward” is Lovecraft’s only novel-length work (about 50,000 words). Though it deals heavily with the Dreamlands, it roams about in other places and is a pretty good introduction to the overall themes that tend to crop up in his other stories – sorcerers, Things Man Was Not Meant to Know, plots from outside time and space, mighty beings who wish the destruction of men, and the ever-present intrepid investigator who ends up in an asylum. It’s not one of my favorites, but it’s not bad. If you decide to get into the Dream Cycle, start with the novel.

The Essential List

Now that we’ve set aside the Dream Cycle stories, I’ll sift out the best of the rest. I tried to give you a rough reading order, based on how much I liked each tale, so the last one in each list is my favorite.

Longer works:

  • At the Mountains of Madness
  • The Call of Cthulhu
  • The Colour Out of Space
  • The Whisperer in Darkness
  • The Dunwich Horror
  • The Shadow over Innsmouth

Shorter works:

  • The Dreams in the Witch House
  • The Shunned House
  • Pickman’s Model
  • The Tomb
  • The Lurking Fear
  • The Thing on the Doorstep
  • Cool Air
  • The Rats in the Walls
  • The Music of Erich Zann
  • The Haunter of the Dark

There you go. That’s your list of essential H.P. Lovecraft stories. I did leave a few off the list for you to discover on your own. Besides, you don’t want to limit yourself to the stories I like. What’s the fun in that? Go read a few more and find the ones you like best. When you do discover those little gems, leave a note in the comments to tell me what you found and why you liked it. I’d love to hear from you!
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:

Rabu, 13 Maret 2013

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

The Kincaid Kolumn Kerfuffle

Posted: 13 Mar 2013 02:14 PM PDT

speed-up-angry-man-slow-pcBefore I hit the meat of my post, let me lay a couple things out there. First, I think we’d be incredibly foolish to tinker with the definition of marriage any more than we have. A few decades of well-intentioned meddling ought to have taught us we absolutely suck at predicting unintended consequences. If we move the very bright line of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, we do so with the full knowledge that we will likely have handed generations after us a weaker society. I know plenty of my conservative friends disagree with me but I’ve yet to have anyone give me a reasoned argument to prove I’m wrong (and no, that’s not an invitation). Second, I don’t care if CPAC invited GOProud to be a co-sponsor, or whatever they call it, at this year’s convention. There’s a lot to the history between some members of the ACU board and GOProud that is rarely reported and I’d bet that history had a lot more to do with the board’s decision than any animus against gay activists. Third, I really don’t care who is or isn’t gay. If you’re gay, fine. If you’re not, fine. You are what you are and you do what you do. Sexual proclivity is the least of my concern when I consider a political candidate, business partner, or friend. I care a heck of a lot more about whether you are a good person, whether you treat those around you well, whether you can control your temper, and where you stand on the eternal Kirk vs. Picard debate.

That said, this editorial by Cliff Kincaid, the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism is ridiculous and shameful. No rational human being should be proud to have their name attached to such a noxious stew of half-baked history, conspiracy theory, and boring, self-aggrandizing outrage-peddling. Here’s a little sample of the frothiest bit.

What better way to destroy the family than to undermine the relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, and eliminate the need for children to have mothers and fathers?

Here, again, the homosexuals deliberately pervert the language, so that two women or two men have now become shacked-up "partners" or even "husband and wife" in "civil unions" or even "marriages."

Hay's contribution to communism in America was developing the idea that homosexuals, like the "workers" under capitalism, were being oppressed and had to assert their "rights."

The donation of gay blood to the nation's blood supply, despite the health risks, is the next "right" that the male homosexuals now are demanding the government grant to them.

I know folks have gone a bit crazy over this. Many of them have demanded AIM condemn the piece. A few have suggested those who won this years Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award boycott the presentation and refuse the award. I don’t think any of that is necessary. AIM ought to apologize for Kincaid’s editorial, not because it’s a hate-filled hate-cake with hate frosting but because it’s a transparent and embarrassing link-bait attempt we bloggers have seen for years.

I doubt Kincaid really believes that homosexuals are in-the-closet communists. Folks who hold that chunk of crazy in their head usually don’t have room for more useful knowledge like how Velcro works or how to operate a doorknob. Sure, it’s possible, but it’s a lot more likely that Kincaid tried to take advantage of the CPAC/GOProud dustup to grab a bit of attention for AIM. Like a lot of people who go a link-whoring, he jumped way the heck over the line. We ought to slam him for it. Link-whoring is a a cheap way to drive web traffic and it makes people a lot less likely to trust what a web site writes. Kincaid cheapened his whole organization and pulled down the reputation of those who work at AIM with him. He’s a bad conservative, a bad writer, and a bad co-worker.

That’s what I think, for whatever it’s worth.
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:

Jumat, 08 Maret 2013

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

On the Ice, Not Every Fight is a Good Fight

Posted: 07 Mar 2013 01:29 PM PST

Hockey FightI’m a hockey fan, despite the NHL’s efforts to drive me from the game. I like the speed of the game, the competitiveness of the league, the athleticism of the men who play the game, and the violence.

Yes, you heard me. I like the violence in hockey. I like contact sports. When I was younger (and you may want to imagine me shaking a cane in your face at this point, you young whippersnapper), I played a few different sports and the ones at which I excelled were the ones where I could use my fireplug-shaped, not-at-all-build-for-speed body to wreak havoc on my opponents. Any chance to drop a shoulder, throw a hip, run someone over, or break up a double play in a game made ma an awfully happy camper.

So while I appreciate when Yvgeni Malkin or Pavel Datsyuk dance delicately through defenders, handling the puck with stick movements almost too fast for the human eye to track, I love the scrappers and grinders. Give me a dirty goal scored from right in front of a hassled goalie by Matt Hendricks, Paul Gaustad, or (God forgive me) Brooks Orpik and I’m a happy camper. I don’t know how you have hockey without the the guys who go hard into the corners, who mix it up in front of the net, who throw the big shoulder or hip checks at the blue line, and who fight.

That’s right, I said fight. Fighting is an important part of hockey with all manner of tactical rationales and if you removed it, you would no longer have hockey but ice dancing, a a pretty game but essentially ballet with a final score. On the other hand, not all fights are equal. There is a world of difference between a fight that happens during the flow of the game and one that is staged. The first is an unavoidable (and even important) part of the game; the latter is foolish and unnecessarily dangerous.

Greg Wyshynski, the Puck Daddy, disagrees and while I’m hesitant to argue with him because I believe he’s the smartest hockey commentator I know, I think he’s missed an important point in his piece of staged hockey fights. First, let me give you a little more setup. Last night, not even 30 seconds into their game, the Maple Leafs’ Frazer McLaren and the Senators’ David Dziurzynski fought. They hadn’t had time to go at each other. Neither player was trying to rev up his team or swing the momentum of the game. Neither player had thrown an iffy check at someone on the other team. This was a staged fight, begun for reasons that had little to do with the game that night. It ended badly. McLaren knocked Dziurzynski out and gave him a concussion. The fight should never have happened and the league should take action against both players and their teams. Here is where Wyshynski and I disagree. He believes my stance on fighting ought to be either all-in or not at all.

Here's where I am on fighting, as an issue of player safety: You can't be "a little pregnant", you can't have a "mild concussion" and you can't crucify the existence of one type of fighting for its dangers while endorsing – either implicit or explicitly – another more seemingly valorous brand of fisticuffs.

Enough with the selective dread.

I'm an across-the-board, card carrying Neanderthal on fighting. I appreciate its value as a tactic. I understand its necessity as a deterrent or a steam value for aggression in this violent game. I acknowledge, without remorse, that it's a barbarous form of entertainment that frequently enhances my enjoyment of the NHL. I like spontaneous fights more than staged fights, but I refuse to take out my scalpel and surgically remove one from the other. It's all fists to faces, knuckles to brains, two players volunteering to endure between 20 and 60 seconds of inhumane punishment for the sake of sport.

But over the decades, many conflicted hockey fans have attempted to add nuance to the fighting debate. They enjoy it, understand its "place in the game" and don't want to align themselves with the pacifist masses that clutch the pearls when the gloves are dropped because they saw Chris Nowinski talk about CTE on CBC.

But it's those staged fights they find abhorrent, that have no place in the game and that are going to get someone killed one day.

The more purposeful integrity the fight has, the less concern for player safety we’re supposed to have, I guess.

Homer_They_Fall_PaintingHe’s missed one consideration, though, that should not be overlooked. One can enjoy a contact sport in which players do get hurt, even seriously, and want that sport to outlaw unnecessary risks to the players. Staged fights are unnecessary risks. They don’t add to the game. They don’t change the outcome of a game. They don’t put people in the seats. They don’t make kids want to grow up and be hockey players. They don’t get grown men onto skates and into beer leagues. They do put players at greater risk of serious and lasting injury and bring players into the game whose only marketable skill is their ability to take repeated shots to the skull, like Homer Simpson dragged into the ring to fight Lucius Sweet.

I suppose you could say my dislike for them is all about “purposeful utility” but so what? I like big hits in a football game but I support rules that protect defenseless players and come down hard on helmet-to-helmet hits. That decision is also based on “purposeful utility” but I don’t think Wyshynski would have much of a problem with it. Hockey can’t reasonably mitigate every risk to a player’s health, but the league can work around the edges. Once upon a time, players didn’t have to wear helmets; now they do. More players wear visors than don’t and the league is even now considering a mandate. Staged fights are a piece of low-hanging fruit the league should not hesitate to pluck and hockey fans ought to encourage it to do so. It simply makes sense, no matter whether you like fights or not.

(Photo Credit: slgckgc on Flickr)

 
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:

Selasa, 05 Maret 2013

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

The Rookie’s Rough Guide to #CPAC2013

Posted: 05 Mar 2013 06:15 AM PST

CPAC-2013If you're a conservative, and haven't been living in a dank cave far from a WiFi signal, you know that the Conservative Political Action Conference, also known as CPAC, is the biggest and baddest gathering of political conservatives in the country. CPAC 2011 set a record with over 11,000 attendees and, though I’ve not been able to find a solid attendance number on last year’s convention, I’d bet it was awfully close to that. Anyone can get lost in the clamor of people, speeches, exhibit booths, street theater, costumed Founding Fathers, fancy dinners, and after-parties. I’ve been to four CPACs and I’m always amazed at how large and loud it is, and how little material the organizers offer to those who are not seasoned veterans of the confab.

This is a new media DIY world, though, and what the organizers won’t provide, I will! Over the past few years, I’ve gleaned a few useful tips that have made my CPAC visits more enjoyable and productive and I’ll share them with you here in the hope that they’ll help you also.

So let's get started.

1) Mind Your Feet

Another year, another bigger venue, huh? This year, CPAC is at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, which is huge (floor plan here) and events will be spread over four floors, which is (I believe) two floors more than last year’s venue, the Marriott Wardman Park. You’re going to walk a lot to cover all the things you want to see, so choose your footwear carefully. Ladies, I know you’ll want to wear your most alluring 3″ stilettos because you want to look stunning. Don’t. You’ll look just as good in a pair of lower heels or pumps. Save the big guns for the after-parties. Guys,  those brand-new squeaky dress shoes may make you feel like Mitt Romney right before he dumps a pile of venture capital cash on a grateful small business, but the blisters you get after a couple hours won't make you happy. Make sure your shoes are broken in , comfortable, and can stand up to a few miles worth of walking without turning your feet into Blisterpalooza 2013.

If you must bring the awesomely showy shoes, carry them with you. CPAC usually provides a swag bag in which you can carry them (though it doesn’t hurt to carry your own bag in which to pack a couple other necessities. More on that in a bit).

Please do not blow off this piece of advice. If you don’t take any of the others, heed this one. It will save you a world of hurt.

2) Dress to Impress, But Be Cool

Last year, there was a bit of a kerfuffle over how some attendees dressed. I won’t get into all that here, but I will say that you should aim for a business casual outfit for the day’s events. I’m not staking out the puritanical old-guy view here; my reason is practical. Since the various exhibits are spread over several floors, it’s a good bet you’ll spend some time on stairs or escalators. Don’t wear something that will cause you or the person coming up the escalator behind you any embarrassment. As well, you’ll be moving around quite a bit and you’ll want something comfortable that you won’t have to tug on two hundred times during the day. So, ladies, nix the micro mini skirts. Guys, stow the super tight pants. Dress well, like you’re going to a business meeting. Later on, when the parties happen, you can go just as wild as you want. CPAC has plenty of room for stylish business casual dress and wild party attire.

I want to be clear. I’m not throwing in my lot with either the “dress code” or the “let it all hang out” crowds. You’ll have a far better time if you wear something that looks good and is comfortable for a full day’s wear. This has been your moderate RINO bullet point of the day.

Oh, you’ll want to think about layering your outfit as well. Even though CPAC is now an early March affair, temperatures will likely be all over the place. It can’t be helped; that’s how it is in DC this time of year. , the hotel will be quite warm and it'll get warmer as the day goes on. You do not want to get stuck in a crowded hall with a few hundred of your closest conservative friends in a heavy sweater over nothing at all. Make sure you can adjust your clothing to the temperature as much as you can.

3) You Can't Do It All, So Plan Ahead

Here is the agenda for CPAC 2013 (PDF download or via the mobile app) It is 17 pages long. That's right, 17 pages of speeches, lectures, panel discussion, book signings, training sessions, and receptions. Go ahead and admit to yourself right now that you are going to miss something you really want to see. It's happened to me the last two years and it'll happen this year, too. Think of CPAC like you’d think of Disneyland: you want to ride all the rides, but there isn't enough time and there are enough clones of you to go around. Believe me, I understand.

Save yourself a lot of time and disappointment and a priority list up before you get there. Print out the agenda or mark it up on the mobile app if you can and figure out what four things you want to see each day. You can go as high as five, but I think four is about the sweet spot for three reasons.

First, when you go over the agenda, you’ll probably end up with a dozen places you want to be each day. If you can set four of them above the others, you have some versatility built in to your schedule. If you miss one of the Big Four, you can fall back to one of the second-tier events. You’ll enjoy your day more because you won’t be chasing the clock most of the day, rushing to get from one end of the hotel to the other lest you miss something you really wanted to see but forgot about until the last minute. Plan ahead. Be happy.

Second, remember these events take a bit longer than you think. Not only should you plan for the time allotted on the schedule, but you should also plan to stand on line for a while, especially for the events that feature A-list speakers. You'll need to get there early if you're going to get a good seat. In the case of book-signings, I'd recommend that you queue up 15-20 minutes beforehand or 30 minutes if it involves one of the really big names. Standing in line chews up time and requires some pre-planning.

Third, if you over-plan your day with too many events, you're going to feel rushed and, ultimately, frustrated when you inevitably miss a speech or you really wanted to see. Remember, you're going to CPAC to enjoy yourself, first and foremost. Which brings me to…

4) Love the Nightlife, but Not too Much

Unless you have the social skills of a dead caribo, or are me, you're going to meet a lot of people over three days. You'll meet your friends, who will introduce you to other friends. You'll meet people you know only through Twitter or Facebook or their blogs. You'll run into famous folks (more on that later). And, most importantly, you'll catch some buzz about one of the many after-parties that happen every night. Even the most committed introvert can not resist the pull of an hour or so spend with friends, new and old. Trust me on this.

Legends are made at CPAC after parties. Whether it's a pre-planned affair (especially the ones that use the magic summoning incantation "Open Bar") or an impromptu hotel suite bacchanalia, chances are you'll get to one or two and they will provide you with stories to tell your friends and perhaps even generations of young conservatives for years. So have fun. Like I said before, you're going to CPAC to enjoy yourself, so don't deprive yourself of the opportunity to do just that.

You know there's a "but" coming, right? Well, here it is. Remember that CPAC runs for three days and plan your after-hours partying accordingly. You don't want to be one of those spent dishrags of partied-out woe slouching around the convention on Saturday afternoon, now do you? No, you want to be bright and alert so you can be in the front of the line for Ann Coulter and the keynote speech that afternoon!

You know what your limits are. Don't exceed them.

Oh, and prepare to receive many, many business cards. This year, I plan to use a neat little app called Evernote Hello to help me keep track of who I meet at CPAC and when. If you don’t want to go the app route, you may want to snap a quick pic of the business card and who gave it to you to help you remember them later (and maybe even make a little handwritten note on the card as well). Don’t worry. Most folks won’t mind if you take their picture (but remember to ask!).

5) Prepare for Brushes with Fame

Whether or not you intend on running into people you know from television, radio, or the internet, you will meet them. It's inevitable, so you might as well plan on it beforehand. In my three years, I've had chance encounters with a lot of conservative dignitaries and met several dozen top-notch bloggers and journalist-types and, chances are, you’ll meet your share as well.  I didn't exactly plan to meet some of the folks I did. In fact, I met Michael Barone at my first-ever CPAC because I came around a corner a bit fast and nearly trucked him like Ray Lewis hitting a wide receiver catching a pass over the middle. Last year, I chanced into a conversation with Chuck Woolery and introduced him to my friend Marie, whose only goal at CPAC was to see him speak, on her birthday. My point is, you will have some wonderful chance meetings. When it happens, say hello, be polite, try not to babble (like I did with Mr. Woolery) and don't be afraid to ask if they'll take a picture with you. Most folks are glad to spend a moment or two for a picture and a quick word, even if they are rushing to an interview or a speech. Some of them will take even more time to chat with you for a bit. Enjoy it and don't freeze up!

6) The Plague, Boss! The Plague!

Every year, a mystery malady strikes dozens of my friends in the days immediately preceding CPAC. Call it a persistent cold, or some sort of winter flu bug, but the illness now known as The CPAC Plague is a pretty miserable experience. Some of my friends ran fevers for a few days, some lost their voice, some ended up with a week of head or chest congestion, and a couple ended up with bronchitis. When you get thousands of people in a relatively enclosed area for three days, a cold can run amuck, especially when a good chunk of the crowd run on little sleep and more alcohol than wholesome meals. Resistance to sickness runs low and germs are plentiful.

Be careful. I'm not saying you should go the full Howard Hughes, but know that all the hand-shaking, happy hugging, and close quarters partying means that a few germs will get past your immune system into your lungs. Wash your hands as often as practical (or carry a small bottle of hand sanitizer), cough into your sleeve or a handkerchief, drink only from your own glass, and try not to partake in every Caligula-like orgy you encounter. Moderate yourself and think about your health. You'll thank me for this when you're on Twitter next week and you read the tweets from everyone who didn't take my advice and were struck down with the CPAC Plague.

7) Prepare for Swag!

CPAC is a swagfest. Nearly every exhibitor will have pamphlets, books, squeezy stress balls, coffee cups, t-shirts, and all manner of other gewgaws to hand out to eager attendees. You, as an eager attendee, will collect quite a lot of swag almost without trying very hard. The fine CPAC folks will give you a swag bag, but you should carry something better. I recommend a medium-sized messenger bag or similarly-sized satchel — something that can hold a couple or three hardback books (which you may pick up at one of the many book-signings) and such other items as a digital camera, phone, or even a netbook if you're feeling ambitious. Remember those shoes I recommended you carry with you? Here’s where you put them. You will also want to reserve a pocket of that bag for a couple small snacks, which brings me to…

8) Food!

I admit, I'm not particularly well-versed about what eateries exist around the hotel. It won't be hard to get up to speed. The hotel staff can recommend several good places and the hotel restaurant serves tasty, if not exactly cheap, victuals. I recommend you throw a couple or three snacks into your bag to help keep your energy levels up — granola or breakfast bars will do nicely. That way you won't have to duck into the restaurant until you absolutely have to. Also be on the lookout for breakfast and lunch seminars in the schedule and get in on them early. At CPAC there can be such a thing as a free lunch! Take that Robert Heinlein!

9) Finishing Up

I've said this before, but I'll say it again because it's important. The point of CPAC, really, is to enjoy yourself and to come out with a little more knowledge in your head about being a savvy conservative than you had when you went in. If you accomplish that and are smiling on your way out the door, then you've had a good three days. Relax, enjoy, and don't forget to say Hi when you see me. I'll give you my card and you can take a picture of me with it. Just don’t cough on me,okay?
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:

Senin, 04 Maret 2013

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

Hey Republican Drama Queens, Put a Sock in It

Posted: 04 Mar 2013 06:30 AM PST

Panic ModeHere I am on a chilly but pretty Saturday morning, catching up on the morning news and minding my own business, when some state Republican official, of whom I’ve never heard, said something unbelievably stupid about rape.

Another day, another Republican making an ill-advised comment about rape. Celeste Greig, the head of the largest GOP volunteer organization in California — Ronald Reagan once called the California Republican Assembly "the conscience of the Republican Party — told the Woodland, California Daily Democrat that rape almost never leads to pregnancies because the body is too traumatized.

"Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized. I don't know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through," she told the newspaper before arriving at the state GOP's spring convention in Sacramento.

This, of course, ruined my entire day. It reduced me to all-caps, rage-fisty tweets and a melodramatic plea for mercy-killing. I was far from alone in my grief and rage. Conservatives leaped to Twitter to join me in my demand that a Republican who lives thousands of miles away from me and whose name I had never seen until this morning stop ruining everything for me. Furthermore, I demanded that all Republicans immediately report to “Never Talk About Rape” training immediately even though 99.999 percent of all elected Republicans respond to gotcha questions about rape and Todd Akin pretty much exactly the way I would.

I don’t understand why Republicans immediately throw on their hair-shirts and roll in the cinders every time another Republican says something stupid. Democrats don’t do this, not when a sitting state legislator says women are too emotional to use a gun to protect themselves from a would-be rapist or tells an under-aged girl that he has a “snake” under his desk she can check out. Mind you, neither instance happened in an interview, when a politician (or anyone, for that matter) can be taken unawares by a question. They happened when the legislators had all the time in the world to think about what they wanted to say. You heard nary a peep from Democrats. No panic. No anguish. Nothing. Heck, Joe Biden, who drops gaffes like David Guetta drops sick beats, barely gets a rumble of public discontent from his fellow Democrats. Were he a Republican, we’d have mass stroke-outs every day. Twitter would explode. Blogs would melt down. It’d be an online apocalypse.

What’s the difference between the way left and right react to the stupid things their politicians say? Well, for one, the left remembers something very important about their politicians — they’re human beings. Politicians are, as a group, no more intelligent nor glib than you or I. They are people and people occasionally say crazy, stupid things. Unfortunately, politicians spend a whole lot more time in front of recording and/or broadcasting devices than you or I, so the stupid things they say get spread around more than our various boneheaded thoughts. When a Democrat says something dumb, they shrug it off and keep on going.

One other thing Democrats remember is that they’re not obliged to defend everything the other members of their party say. You can flip that around to say no one person speaks for every member of the party as if every elected official is a Pope, bestowed with the power to speak for every Democrat on every issue. The left takes the best of both worlds — they own the great things their politicians say and walk away from the bad things that too often drop from their lips.

Why can’t we on the right do the same? When the next Republican says something cringe-worthy about rape (and, trust me, it will happen), and the left swarms around us and asks “Well, what about that? Do you agree with it? Aren’t you the Party of Rape?”, we ought to say “No, moron. We aren’t the party of rape, I don’t agree with what that chowderhead said, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to tag me with the dumb thing some person I’ve never heard of said”. That’s not so tough, is it? The choice to own the stupidity is ours. We don’t have to if we don’t choose to. So let’s knock off the histrionics and do what our Democrat friends do: shrug then attack.
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:

Minggu, 03 Maret 2013

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

A Graceful Loser is Still a Loser, Republicans.

Posted: 28 Feb 2013 07:47 PM PST

White Surrender FlagI swear there are days when I don’t understand Republicans, usually days that end in “y”. Yesterday, the Senate confirmed Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury. Lew is, from my view in the cheap seats, not at all suitable for the office. As President Obama’s director of the Office of Budget and Management and later his Chief of Staff, he was one of the most dishonest brokers of the administration’s busted economic plans. He was a key player at Citibank before the President’s election as the company cratered and took a rather substantial chunk of our money with it. Nevertheless, Lew cashed out nicely. Any politically-aware Republican should have rejected him with more than a hint of righteous fury as a Wall Street Monopoly Man caricature who spent some of the hardest economic years in the past 50 years on the wrong side of “main street” America.  His confirmation was another in a long string of Republican failures this year.

Nevertheless, John Hinderaker at Power Line saw the confirmation as a reason to praise Senator Jeff Sessions, who spent 2 1/2 hours trying to rally his compatriots to stand against Lew.

Jack Lew, the plutocrat nominated as Secretary of the Treasury by Barack Obama, was confirmed by the Senate this afternoon on a 71-26 vote. What was notable about the vote was not so much the outcome as the challenge that Senator Jeff Sessions threw down before his Democratic colleagues–try to defend Jack Lew, and if you can't defend him, don't vote for him. One thing is for certain: the Democrats had zero interest in trying to defend Lew's record.

As it happens, they didn’t have to. Of the 45 Senate Republicans, 21 voted to confirm Lew, including such rising stars as Kelly Ayotte and Rand Paul. Sessions impassioned speeches had about as much effect on his fellow Senators votes as a fly’s valiant charge into a windshield would slow a speeding tractor trailer. Nevertheless, Lew’s confirmation was a win for Republicans according to Hinderaker because karma might spin ’round and get the the Democrats.

For now, Democratic Party plutocrats are firmly in the saddle. But the handwriting, perhaps, is on the wall. Their policies have failed, again and again; they have no plan to rescue the nation's finances; they have nothing to offer but slander and hate. Won't the day inevitably come when they get what they deserve?

No, it won’t. Political comeuppance is not inevitable. You have to create it, often through patient planning and clever maneuvering. The Republicans have had chances to lay that groundwork this year — the fiscal cliff; the debt ceiling; the nominations of John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and Jack Lew; the sequester — and each time they shrug and claim victory because someone, somewhere made a good speech or accepted less than total defeat. The handwriting is not on the wall. America gave Democrats more power last November and, unless things change drastically, they’ll likely do so again next year. Thus far, Republicans have no answer, no plan, no fight.

No pretty but futile speech will give the Democrats the political defeats they deserve. Senator Sessions did just fine but, as with most Republican shows of defiance over the past few months, he was undone by fecklessness from within his party. If they really want to bring some comeuppance, they’re going to have to come up with a plan, a real agenda, and some backbone.

And we’ll have to stop applauding them for being graceful losers.

(Photo Credit: portobeseno on Flickr)

Is Working from Home Good, Bad, or a Path to Unicorn HappyLand?

Posted: 28 Feb 2013 02:02 PM PST

Marissa MayerYahoo CEO Marissa Mayer kicked up a ruckus when she ordered her employees to come into the office every day instead of working one or more days from home or a remote office. Enough Yahoos were irked by the memo that a “plethora” of them leaked it to the AllThingsD website, which published it. Matt Mullenweg jumped into the first AllThingsD story on the memo to boast that all but 20 of his employees work remotely and the Acculturated blog published a post representative of most stories I’ve seen on the subject that said:

Though research in this area is relatively new, working from home definitely decreases commute time, increases an individual's ability to have work-family balance, and may allow for increased performance and satisfaction. However, the major downside for working from home has to do with a lack of face to face contact – not just Skype but actually being in the presence of another human being. In the worst case scenario, these pros and cons might be considered a wash, but on the surface, they do not appear to be something that Mayer needed to crush like a grape.

No they do not, which ought to give us pause to consider why she’d bring down the hammer on her people. Perhaps Yahoo’s employees were abusing the privilege, as this Business Insider article suggests.

“For what it’s worth, I support the no working form home rule. There’s a ton of abuse of that at Yahoo. Something specific to the company.”

This source [a former Yahoo engineer] said Yahoo’s large remote workforce led to “people slacking off like crazy, not being available, spending a lot of time on non-Yahoo! projects.”

“It was a great way to get Y! to pay you while you put in minimal work and do your side startup.”

I understand what Mayer is trying to do. Yahoo is in trouble. Its infrastructure is too large and too expensive. Its people are scattered to hell and back and an unknown number of them aren’t working nearly as hard for Yahoo as they should. Mayer needs to get a handle on her company and, more importantly, on the people working under her. She can’t do that if she can’t get them in one place, working with each other, so she can see who is worth keeping and who is not. Yahoo’s old work-from-home arrangement seemed long on the “let people work from wherever they like” and short on the “make sure those people are still producing enough value to make the arrangement worthwhile”.

There is a sizable down-side to working from home. Very few people (and I am one of them) take easily to working without structure or supervision. That’s not to say the skill is hard to acquire but if you’re like me and you’ve spent your whole life in traditional work environments working without a schedule imposed on you from an outside authority will daunt you. I find comfort in the routine — come to work by a certain time, work at a specific location, take your breaks at fairly predictable times, go home after eight or eight-and-a-half hours. I bet you do too.

However, working without a safety net (or a cattle prod) is a skill most of us can learn but that learning doesn’t happen accidentally. I believe companies like Yahoo get into trouble when they believe they can simply cut employees from the leash of responsibility without training or much oversight and assume they won’t run wild, especially when for many years they were a more traditional “everyone gather in the cubicle farm” type of company. Matt Mullenweg is proud of his largely-autonomous work force, but he didn’t get it by accident. I’d bet big money he looks for people who show they could work by themselves and gives them follow-on training to make sure they have the skills and resources they need and the accountability his company needs.

Sooooo…what does that mean for you? After all, this post isn’t much good to you unless I give you a little tidbit you can use, right? Here’s the good stuff. If you’ve a job that doesn’t absolutely require your physical presence, you can probably work from home at least one or two days a week. You’ll have to approach your bosses the right way — bring them proof it’ll cost them less money and won’t cost them any less productivity. The economy is rough enough these days that your pitch should get at least a fair hearing if you bring it down to the bottom line.

Getting your employer to agree with you is the easy part, though. Once you’ve slipped the office leash, you’ll have to back up the promises you made in your boss’ office. Read up on the perils (maybe NSFW) and pitfalls and pick up as many tips from those who are doing what you want to do as you find useful (see Leo Babauta here and here and Singyin Lee). Yes, you will have gotten off of one lead and put yourself into another set of traces, but they’re traces you control. Be deliberate, make a plan and stick to it, and enjoy yourself.

What? You wanted bullet points? Okay. Okay. Bullet points.

  • Make a daily schedule and stick to it: If you’ve agreed to put in 8 hours a day, then put in 8 structured hours a day in. Don’t like structure? Make a to-do list for every day you work from home and get it done. Wait, that’s structure too. Oh, well. Don’t let it rattle you. We humans need structure or we end up adrift and useless, like a Democratic Senator.
  • Make sure everyone who will be at home with you knows when it’s working time: Your loved ones don’t mean to be time-burglars, but they are. They love you and want to spend time with you and, if those loved ones are tiny people, they want things like food and drink. They won’t know like you do how important that work time is unless you make sure they know. If you work in an office, close the door. Heck, hang out a sign if you need to. If you don’t have an office, wear headphones so they know you’re doing something other than surfing the net for funny cat videos. Most importantly, talk to them before you bag the work at home gig.
  • Home-worker must work: Twitter is tempting. So is World of Warcraft. YouTube is more tempting. Shut it all down and keep it that way until the work is done. Believe me, I know how hard this will be; I have trouble with it myself. Still, start building the habit today, then do the same thing tomorrow. Habits are built from daily victories. Put a string of them together and don’t crush yourself too hard if you sip up one. Just do better the next day.
  • Keep in touch with your boss: Just because you’re not at the office doesn’t mean you’re not part of the team. Your employer will want progress reports, even if they don’t have a formal set-up to get them. If you’re away from the office once a week, you don’t have to check in nearly as often, though it’s not a bad idea to make sure your boss is happy with the arrangement. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to build into your call a reminder about why you’re working from home in the first place. Remember the bottom line for, for goodness’ sake, remember to be thankful!

Of course, none of these tips are worth much if you work for Yahoo, but I’ve a suspicion that Mayer’s order is only temporary. Once she’s sure of her people and the company turns around, she’ll be a lot more likely to let people slip away to remote working locations. It’s the smart thing to do.

 

(Photo Credit: Fortune Live Media on Twitter)
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:
Langganan: Postingan (Atom)