Monica

With all the drives to get people registered to vote in time for the November election, and at least one state reportedly headed to court over deadlines (caused, apparently, by Columbus Day being a holiday), I've been wondering... why do we even need voter registration today? (Aside from preserving some government jobs, I mean.) What's wrong with saying: show up at the poll in your assigned location, show proof of citizenship and of residence, be checked against a list of people who can't vote (mainly people who've already voted, but I think felons can't vote?), and vote. Since voting is districted, election officials can make sure any no-vote list is distributed to the right places in advance -- no Internet connection required. From there, it's just checking that the person is in the right polling place and hasn't already been here. Nobody has to have done paperwork in advance; everybody who's eligible and wants to gets to vote. Wouldn't this enfranchise more voters than the current system?

(You already have to give your name when you show up to vote and be checked off the list, so there's no privacy issue that isn't already present.)

I'd like to thank dglenn for bringing this to my attention:

"[...] as an Orthodox rabbi who does not officiate at same-sex marriages [...] My 'side' did not lose, because my side is never defined by any one position on a matter of ritual or liturgy, no matter how important that matter may be. My side, I hope, is God's side, and the God in whom I believe is infinite -- bigger and more complex than can be reduced to any single decision, or even any single tradition, for that matter." -- Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, I am an orthodox rabbi who doesn't perform gay marriages, but I celebrate today's Supreme Court decision, 2015-06-26.

I am heterosexual and religious. The Supreme Court decision to recognize a secular, legal status does not in any way harm my religious rights, nor anybody else's. Why should my gay friends be barred from the legal and financial protections, and obligations, that I and my husband have? (I do wish they'd declared "civil unions for everyone" and taken the term "marriage" completely out of the law, but I presume they can't do that on their own.)

No clergy with objections to gay marriage need officiate. That's proper; most rabbis won't perform marriages between Jews and non-Jews, Catholic priests won't remarry those who are divorced, and I presume there are other examples. The courts continue to uphold your religious rights.

Except for that one some claim of imposing their religious mores on others. That one took a little damage Friday.

Dear SCOTUS,

Let me see if I have this right: A corporation that has a small number of shareholders, like a family, is a "person", and a corporate "person" can reject at least one legally-required expenditures it objects to on religious or moral grounds, and thus Hobby Lobby doesn't have to follow Obamacare's requirement to fund contraception. Got it.

A corporation, while maybe a "person", is clearly no more of a "person" than an actual, real live person, like me. There are legally-required expenditures that apply to me that I object to on religious or moral grounds too. So, dear SCOTUS, could you please clarify which of those I can opt out of? If Obamacare or contraception is somehow unique, please specify how. If you say that I can't opt out, why not? Surely you're not saying that, for example, Hobby Lobby has more rights as a person than I do?

(Quite aside from how you feel about any particular law, while it's a law it should apply equally -- or there should be a clear reason that cases aren't equivalent.)

I interrupt preparations for the class I'm teaching next week at the music and dance collegium (gosh, I hope I have this calibrated right...) to pass along some random short bits.

Dear Netflix: I appreciate the convenience of your recent change to treat an entire TV series as one unit in the streaming queue, instead of one season at a time like before. However, in doing so you have taken away the ability to rate individual seasons of shows, which is valuable data. It also makes me wonder, when you recommend things to me based on my ratings, if you are giving all ratings the same weight -- 200 hours of a long-running TV show should maybe count differently than a two-hour movie. Just sayin'.

These photos by Doug Welch are stunning. Link from thnidu.

How Pixar fosters collective creativity was an interesting read on fostering a good workplace. Link from nancylebov.

Speaking of the workplace, I enjoyed reading how to run your career like a gentlewoman and several other articles I found there by following links. Link from _subdivisions_.

Rube Goldberg meets J.S. Bach, from several people. Probably fake, but it amused me anyway. (This is a three-minute Japanese commercial. Do commercials that long run on TV, or would this have been theatrical, or what?)

Speaking of ads, in advance of our SCA group's election for a new baron and baroness today, the current baron sent around a pointer to this video about an upcoming British referendum on voting systems. Well-done! (Of course, I agree with both the system and the species they advocate. :-) ) I wish we had preference ballots in the US.

A while back a coworker pointed me to how to make a hamentashen Sierpinski triangle. Ok ok, some of my browser tabs have established roots; Purim was a while ago. But it's still funny, and I may have to make that next year.

Speaking of geeky Jewish food, a fellow congregant pointed me to The Kosher Guide to Imaginary Animals. which looks like fun. I've certainly found myself in that kind of conversation at times (e.g. is unicorn kosher? well, is it a goat (medieval) or a horse (Disney)?). Some of you have too, I know. :-)

dr_zrfq passed on this article about a dispute between a church and a bar. Nothing special about that, you say? In this case the church members prayed to block it, the bar was struck by lightning, the bar owner sued, and the church denied responsibility. I love the judge's comment on the case: “I don't know how I’m going to decide this, but as it appears from the paperwork, we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that does not.”

47 seconds of cuteness: elk calf playing in water, from shalmestere.

I don't remember where I found the link to these t-shirts, but there are some cute ones there.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

Gosh, I wish the asker of this question were kidding.

I vote on issues, either directly or at the meta level. An example of the latter: as grouchyoldcoot pointed out last night, Pennsylvania is losing a congressional district due to the recent census, and the state legislature and governor together decide the new boundaries. I favor the Republican candidate for governor (I don't think we can afford Onorato, who is likely to continue the current governor's reckless policies), so it matters that the Democrats dominate at least one house in the legislature. Under other circumstances I probably would not have voted for the Democratic incumbent, but I did today. Did it help? We'll see, I guess. But I feel strongly enough about the issues that I wasn't willing to ignore them and vote for the Democratic candidate for governor even though the Republicans have a strong presence in the legislature now. We can survive a Republican-drawn redistricting more easily than we can survive a continuation of Ed Rendell's policies.

(For those who are wondering, I don't particularly like either of the candidates for US Senate, but Pat Toomey scares the crap out of me so I voted for Joe Sestak.)

I tend to vote for Libertarians when they appear on the ballot (none today), but only if they pass basic due diligence on the issues. They have to be little-l libertarians too and not just people who got enough signatures on a petition to run. As I think we've all come to learn, minor parties can easily attract wackos.

Pesach has been going well. Tonight/tomorrow is the last day, which is a holiday like the first day was. Yesterday Rabbi Symons led a beit midrash on the "pour out your wrath" part of the haggadah; more about that later, but it led me to a new-to-me haggadah that so far I'm liking a lot. (I borrowed a copy after the beit midrash.) When I lead my own seder (two years from mow, I'm guessing?) the odds are good that it will be with this one.

Tangentially-related: a short discussion of overly-pediatric seders.

Same season, different religion: researchers have found that portion sizes in depictions of the last supper have been rising for a millennium, though I note the absence of an art historian on the research team.

Same season, no religion: I won't repeat most of the links that were circulating on April 1, but I haven't seen these new Java annotations around much. Probably only amusing to programmers, but very amusing to this one.

Not an April-fool's prank: xiphias is planning a response to the Tea Party rally on Boston Common on April 14: he's holding a tea party. You know, with fine china and actual tea and people wearing their Sunday (well, Wednesday) best. It sounds like fun.

Edit (almost forgot!): things I learned from British folk songs.

From nancylebov: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality looks like it'll be a good read. Or, as siderea put it, Richard Feynman goes to Hogwarts.

Real Live Preacher's account of a Quaker meeting.

Thanks to jducoeur for a pointer to this meta community over on Dreamwidth.

I remember reading a blog post somewhere about someone who rigged up a camera to find out what his cat did all day. Now someone is selling that. Tempting!

In case you're being too productive, let me help with this cute flash game (link from Dani).

Having completed the first pass at digitizing or replacing our folk music on old media (we still need to do some proof-listening), Dani and I are merging our iTunes libraries so this might be easier going forward. Oof. We're up to "S" so far. "T" is big because it includes all the "The"s. Tracking changes (e.g. to tagging) going forward is still going to be a bit of a challenge.

Was Joe Biden president of the US for about 5 minutes today? (We were watching in a conference room at work, and it was several minutes past noon before they got to Obama's swearing-in. So I'm curious.)

In English we say "it's all Greek to me". What do speakers of other languages say? Whom do they implicate? Wonder no more; Language Log has a nice graph of some of these. I admit to being surprised by China's designee.

What if the stop sign were designed by corporations? (link from filkerdave)

As dsrtao said, an airline charging a cancellation fee when they rebooked you on a downed flight is near-canonical chutzpah. (Yes, I saw the note that they recanted.)

This story of a mailing list gone wrong (from Microsoft) made me laugh. And sigh, because while I haven't had to deal with quite that level of mess, even 20ish years after mailing lists started to become broadly accessible, there are still an awful lot of people out there who don't behave appropriately.

There's an interesting discussion of filtering and politeness on social networks over on CommYou.

Note to self: if Shalom Hartman Institute is too expensive this summer, the Aleph kallah might be an alternative. It could be good or it could be too esoteric for me; I can't tell from the available information. When they post class descriptions I'll have a better idea. I had a similar concern about NHC but it turned out to be good, so I'm keeping an open mind. Has anyone reading this gone to one of these?

My voting place is a school gym that hosts four precincts. This morning the line for one of them (14/25, I think, for you locals) was about 50 people long, while the others were only 2-3 people long. Fortunately for me, I'm in 14/23, and there was one person ahead of me at the table. Time of arrival at the building (not the gym): 8:35. Time out, including a stop at the bake sale (the school kids actually went to the trouble to have kosher goods, so I rewarded that): 8:48. I hadn't seen in advance the text of the one ballot question, so that might have accounted for as much as one minute of my time there. All in all, this was much smoother than I expected, and I was at work by 9:05. (I think it took me longer to vote in the mid-terms two years ago.)

I saw no campaigners or pollsters at all, by the way -- pretty unusual.

If I correctly interpreted things, I was voter #82 in my precinct. I understand turnout is supposed to be high today, but you can't tell that from my precinct.

I have never had, or even seen ("in the flesh"), an "I voted" sticker. We get paper stubs -- "receipts" in the sense of showing we were there, but there is no paper trail for actual votes.

I had received some private offers from "non-swing" states of vote trades, but in the end I decided that my vote for Bob Barr in PA is more important than that vote would be in some other state. In PA it affects our ballot access, among things; in another state it's just a statistic -- so in my eyes my vote here is worth many times what it would be worth in a trade scenario. I didn't feel it would be ethical (and perhaps not legal) to ask for an exchange rate other than 1:1.

It looks like Congress is on the verge of passing the bailout bill. Sigh. I feel like I want to say more about that, but it's not coming. In the meantime, this background explanation from David Director Friedman seems sound to me.

To maybe bring some cheer in the wake of that, it's clean-out-the-browser-tabs day:

The sanctuary in the desert, modernized by hobbitblue:
You can go North, South, East or West
>N
There is a table of bread here
>Eat bread
You are not hungry, trust me.
[...]

The great schlep -- an organized campaign to send kids to Florida to convince their grandparents to vote for Obama. Or, at least, they'll visit. :-) Link from browngirl and mamadeb.

Duckling scam from zachkessin.

Q: How many children of a dysfunctional family does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Your brother would know.
Passed on by siderea.

Sarah Palin Disney (video) forwarded by tangerinpenguin made me laugh.

hrj made mock sushi.

I want this lamp (from nancylebov).

I found this video touching, right before Rosh Hashana (it has no religious content). Forwarded by 530nm330hz.

And finally, sing to your pooky is a thoughtful entry from scaharp.

The bookshop that has all the books in the world -- except one is a lovely 8-page graphic short story (link from shewhomust).

Joel on Software and Coding Horror (I hadn't heard of the latter before but looks interesting) have launched Stack Overflow, which looks like it could be a good resource for answering technical questions. (I hope that by logging in with my LJ OpenID from home and saying "always accept", I'll be able to answer questions with that ID from work where LJ is blocked.)

Programmers as carpenters (short).

Harold Feld's analysis of the Palin camp's attack on Oprah (part one). This story fizzled soon after hitting CNN on Monday; I hope that's the last we hear of it, but it seems plausible that it could come back on a slower news day. Sheesh. Usually it's folks from the left who assert that freedom of the press means you're entitled to someone else's press.

A few on the economy, some serious and some light (because sometimes you have to laugh to avoid crying too hard):

• We've all seen that ABC graph comparing the Obama and McCain tax plans (sorted by bracket). Here's a version that's closer to scale (link from anastasiav).
• Scott Adams surveyed economists to try to find out what the experts think about the candidates. A surprising (to me) number said it doesn't matter which candidate wins (on this set of issues).
• An article on the current troubles by one of the Nobel laureates in economics. Interesting on first reading; I haven't dug deeper yet. And, as demonstrated most recently in the previous bullet, economists don't tend to agree on much.
• This picture turned out to be sadly ironic.
• Didn't anyone consider this angle on the looming economic disaster? (Onion video from rjlippincott).

In the comments here we were talking about health care in the US. The current system is broken in many ways, but the "nuke it and start over with some nationalized program" proposals are scary too. What incremental improvements are possible? I have to believe that there are some.

One idea I'm interested in is what would happen if we separated paying for routine care from paying for catastrophic care. What would happen if people could be on their own for the former but could buy a policy to cover hospitalizations, major illnesses, and the like? How effective would that be and what would it tend to cost? What would having that in play do to the over-the-counter (uninsured) price of routine care? (Yes, I know that not everyone can afford to pay for routine care out of pocket. I'm exploring a suite of options, not choosing a single one.)

On the flip side, would medical practices or insurance companies be willing to sell affordable plans that cover all your routine care (only), if they were not on the hook for catastrophic losses? Could that get things down to the point where the average family could afford regular checkups, preventative care, and routine tests (which helps prevent some catastrophic issues)? Such plans exist now in niches (vision and dental, most commonly in my experience), but I haven't heard of one for general medical care. Why not? (Am I totally misunderstanding where the profit centers are in the insurance business?)

Both angles are important. What I'm labelling catastrophic incidents are (as the label implies) financially devastating if you don't have sufficient coverage. Outside of elder-care issues I'm not sure how common they are, but it's the sort of thing I wouldn't want to take a chance on. I insure my car and house, after all -- how much the moreso should I insure my health?

What I suspect has a bigger impact on the poor, though, is the routine care. If you don't have insurance, you're looking at a three-digit number to walk into your doctor's office. Throw in some kids and you're in trouble. (This is why I asked what would happen to those costs if catastrophic care were a separate factor.) Could plans that just cover routine care be made affordable enough for most people? This doesn't solve the other problem, but neither does the current system -- we rely on hospitals' obligations to treat (which is a legitimate public demand while they pay no taxes), or medicaid/medicare/SSI in some cases, to get through those. Remember, incremental improvement.

I'd also like to explore the effects of reducing drug regulation, letting people buy from anywhere that's selling and reducing barriers to getting things onto the market. I know the standard argument against this (those high prices pay for R&D), but I'm not sure how much I believe that. What are the other considerations?

Where else could we look for incremental improvements?

(In case you haven't figured it out, I am not a medical professional, an economist, nor part of the insurance industry.)

I bought a new calendar today and, to my surprise, among the candle-lighting times on each page it lists Pittsburgh. (Usually we don't make the cut.) While looking at this I noticed that sunset in September is moving by about 12 minutes per week, but that in March it only moves by about 8 minutes a week. Shouldn't it be symmetrical? (The delta for sunrise and sunset changes over the course of the year, with the widest swings being at equnoxes and the smallest ones at solstices. I grok that; I don't grok that they don't match.)

Friday night I saw something unusual at services: a man lit candles and a woman made kiddush and there was no special occasion dictating that. For all that egalitarianism is a core principle in my movement, I don't think I have ever seen a woman make kiddush in our sanctuary before, unless there were special circumstances (sisterhood service, a bat mitzvah, etc). Gee, maybe there's hope that someday I will be offered that honor after all. (There's still another barrier: there is a strong meme of giving that pair of honors to a couple. This was violated this week, too.)

Yesterday morning after services our newest rabbi (hmm, I need a shorthand notation for him -- the others are "senior rabbi" and "associate rabbi") talked with the group about adult education. He wanted to know what we want to learn, when we want to learn it, and how we want to learn it. It was a good discussion; I wish im luck in distilling down feedback that, in aggregate, meant "all of it". :-) He seemed a little surprised by the idea that, actually, we'd love to learn on Shabbat -- ideally right after services, but late afternoon leading into havdalah would be acceptable to some. I hope that idea bears fruit. (Of course, he was asking the group of people who self-selected to stay around after services for the discussion... but every option doesn't need to appeal to every congregant, only to a critical mass. And we also discussed the idea of giving the same class multiple times, in different kinds of timeslots -- a teacher's dream, but for some reason we don't tend to do it.)

At the end of the discussion he said something interesting, so after it broke up I asked him "did you just imply that you're available for individual study?" and he said yes. Heh. I'll be in touch.

Short takes:

I assume that everyone has by now seen Jon Stewart on election hypocrisy. You might not have seen Language Log's discourse analysis on Karl Rove.

(I have not posted about the election; it's not because I don't care, but because there's so much as to overwhelm and lots of other people are already posting good, thoughtful pieces.)

I recently found myself in a discussion about internet discussions and used the phrase on the internet nobody knows you're a dog. I later went looking for the cartoon; it shouldn't surprise me that it has a Wikipedia entry, but it did surprise me a little that Google suggested the phrase after I'd typed only "on the internet". That real-time search-guessing thing is good sometimes. (I also went looking for a recipe for a dish I ate last night at Ali Baba's, and when I'd typed only "mujdara" it offered two completions, "recipe" and "calories".)

Speaking (sort of) of internet discoveries, this article from Real Live Preacher taught me about the Caganer, a figure we don't often see in nativity scenes these days but apparently quite normal in times past.

This article on using the internet for identity theft (link from Raven) didn't have anything new for me, but it's a good summary to give to people just getting started. It did remind me how annoying I find the canned security questions used by most banks -- things like "mother's maiden name" and "city of your birth" were way too easy to crack even before the net was ubiquitious. (And the ones that aren't tend to be non-deterministic, like "favorite color".) Fortunately, in most cases your bank doesn't really care about the answer; it's just a password. So lying adds security at little cost, assuming you can remember the lie. (What do you mean my first pet wasn't named "as375m~@z"? :-) )

No surprises here -- with 99.3% counted Clinton won PA by 8.6% (54.3 - 45.7) (full results here), enough to continue an increasingly-ugly fight but not the clear win she needed in order to be viable. Obama isn't much affected; a win would have helped him but everyone expected him to lose, so a loss doesn't seem to hurt. Apparently she got the older rural white vote and he got the younger urban black vote, as everyone expected. I wonder if months of arguing about demographics will be better or worse than months of mud-slinging? Though I guess after the people are done voting, with no winner, things might change. I do wish that, in the absence of news in one area, the online media were more inclined to report actual news in other areas. (I'm glad my dead-tree newspaper still does a reasonable job of that.)

Some folks have been claiming that the media are biased against Clinton. I don't see it, really; there's plenty of bias against Obama too. Who actually believes that "the media" speak with one voice? It's important to use multiple news sources precisely because they don't. But for those who claim an anti-Clinton bias, what's with reporting this as a win by 10%? At best you can round (legitimately) to 9. (While I was writing this the site updated, now reporting 54.6 to 45.4. That's still not 10% unless you do your math by rounding one number and then substracting from 100 to get the other. I could see some sloppy reporters doing that, but those weren't the published numbers this morning when I saw 10% headlines.)

In unrelated news... friends in Boston, is this report accurate? (Link from Metahacker on LJ.) Legislation is pending to restrict public movement of people suspected of being gang members -- sponsored by Democrats? WTF? That seems really out of character for most Democrats at all, let alone New England Democrats. Or is this some sort of trick where you introduce a bill you know can't pass to get some of your constituents off your back, while hoping other people see what you're doing and don't hold it against you?