exploring washington dc’s back alleys

 back alleys have always been one of those things that fascinated me since i moved to the US. i have started to explore them now with sunday afternoon walks. they are these places where people park their cars, put their trash, but they rarely walk there. most back alleys don’t have names (at least not here in DC). if you look at street maps (like the google maps) you will have a hard time finding them. it does feel a bit strange sometimes walking through them since you will likely be alone, with the odd car coming by or someone from a restaurant dumping some trash through a back door. but at the same time they are a great window into america. … btw google satellite maps are a great way to plan a back alley excursion. other pictures of dc back alleys can be found on my flickr site http://www.flickr.com/photos/20008/sets/72157604318995863/map/ 

what is washington dc’s police doing standing around inside stores?

i went to the new mall in columbia heights today (they have a target, a best buy, and a bed bath and beyond). when i left the best buy there was a police officer in his mpdc uniform standing inside the store, checking the receipts of customers leaving the store (a function that is usually done by store clerks or store security staff). when i left the target a couple of minutes later, there too was a mpdc police officer standing inside the store. the same can be found day-in, day-out at the giant, where a mpdc officer is sitting inside the store nearly all the time. it is not that i am against seeing more police on the streets, but this is not on the streets, this is in stores. these stores are not public space (as a lot of stories about malls and stores recently have shown — with mall visitors not being allowed to make pictures or wear the shirts they like) and therefor should be protected by private security guards if those store deem it necessary to have extra security. mpdc is payed by tax payers and the focus of the force should therefor be on protecting all citizens and not just the goods of a select few companies. if those police officers would stand outside of the stores on the streets, they would be able to provide security to the whole neighborhood as well as ensure that criminals who are targeting the stores would be deterred.  i would be quite interested to know if this is mpdc policy to have police stationed in stores or if maybe these officers are making an extra buck by allowing stores to cut on security cost?  

expelled movie shows why it is dangerous to have lawyers run a country

so i heard about this documentary movie by ben stein (who as far as i can tell is not a scientist but a lawyer and speech writer) about the injustice that is done to the intelligent design and the creationist movement. i went out to seek out the web site of the movie and watched the preview 
 
watching this preview (and i have to admit i haven’t watched the movie and to be honest, i will not watch it because based on this preview this is just a blatant attempt to show how horrible those darwin believing scientists are and that it is all some sinister conspiracy of pro darwinists that keep our kids from knowing about intelligent design and creationism) i just couldn’t believe what i was seeing. ben stein seems to have gone to some good schools, but that seems to have not had a big impact. or maybe lawyers just are incapable of actual thinking?
my first issue with the movie and the preview was the subliminal connection it makes between darwin supporting scientists and hitler and the third reich (by directly saying that in the US stiller thought there was free speech unlike in hitler germany, and by showing pictures and movies of german concentration camps while talking about darwinism). this kind of debating certainly reminds me of lawyers in US courtrooms who a lot of times care less about the truth, but about winning a case and making arguments that have little to do with facts but to win sympathy points with jurors, but luckily it is not what wins factual scientific debates. 
this leads me to my second point, when stein make the argument about free speech. to him teaching intelligent design and/or creationism is a free speech issue. IT IS NOT. science has not free speech. education is not about free speech, it is about facts. i want kids to learn about the importance of free speech in politics and society. but when it comes to learning, to science, to history, or any other subject, i want kids to learn facts, proven facts. teaching kids that the holocaust did not happen is not free speech it is ignorance and dangerous.  teaching kids that 2 + 2 = 5 is not free speech it is ignorance and teaching it will hurt our kids who learn it since it puts them at a disadvantage compared to kids that learn 2 + 2 = 4 in a global market place. intelligent design is NOT science. there are no facts, there is nothing that can be proven to be true. it is only something one can believe in. but science is beyond believe, it is about knowing, about being certain. and when it comes to darwin scientists are certain. 

speech on race - a speech that should not be necessary in 2008…

… but unfortunately the speech is still necessary.  in case there are people out there that have not seen the speech yet … here it is:   as usual a superb speech that is both moving and invigorating at the same time, and is addressing a topic that a lot wish would not be necessary to give and others would rather ignore. i am not sure a president obama would make race something no one cares about anymore, but i would hope it would help to get there at sometime in the future. 

american enterprise institute once again showcases its stupidity

think tanks are supposed to employ smart, independently thinking people that provide expert opinions on issues at hand. ok, stop laughing. i know, this is just the ideal. reality is that think tanks employ yes-men (and women) that are hired to come up with “analysis” and “reports” that will support a predefined opinion. the american enterprise institute is one such think tank. “experts” that have worked there include lynne cheney and paul wolfowitz. i guess it is quite clear what kind of opinions the american enterprise institute supports. and yes, they wrote quite a bit how advantageous it would  be if the US would invade iraq … well so much for that. but one would think that a think tank will keep on thinking and learning. but, no. no such luck.  michael rubin one of the thinking fellows at the american enterprise institute today gave an interview to cnsnews.com in which he commented on nancy pelosi’s comments that the iraq war is a failure (not really hard to argue with that). but here is what the thinker (or maybe tanker?) had to say: 

 “I used to give Nancy Pelosi benefit of the doubt, but I don’t think she’ll be happy until we have a Rwanda-like genocide. Pelosi is perhaps the worst example of a liberal racist: She sees Iraqis as nothing more than a template upon which to fight a partisan battle. It really is disgraceful,” he added.  

 hm, this makes me wonder… i would assume that if you work in a think tank and think and research all day long  you follow the news and keep on-top of what is going on in the world. but not so for mr. rubin it seems like. let’s provide him with a couple of data points here: 

• estimated death toll in rwanda:  937,000 
• estimated death toll in iraq (until the end of 2006): 655,000 

ok, i admit that there is a 300,000 dead difference, but then the iraq war is still going on with people nearly dying daily (although i have to admit that it is getting harder and harder to find news about there bombings, not because they don’t happen but mostly because it seems western media have gotten bored by them). but besides the 300,000 dead difference i would say  that a rwanda like genocide is pretty much already underway in iraq with sunnis, shias, and kurds killing each other for a couple of years now.so, maybe, just maybe it is not pelosi, but bush, cheney, mccain, and yes, also mr. rubin who are fighting a partisan battle over a lost war which so far has cost thousands of american lives and is costing way more than half a million iraqi lives (those are by the way the people that the US and people like mr. rubin wanted free). 

iraq is doing just fine … you still need a bullet proof west though

mccain is visiting iraq, and he will probably proclaim again that things are going great and are no different than they are in any US city. well, i guess with the exception of the bullet proof west you have to wear (even at the heavily guarded airport in the middle of nowhere)  the story about his visit on the nyt web site includes an interesting quote from a iraqi on the street: 

Some Sunni Arabs were not so pleased by the visit. “If the Republicans win the election, then nothing will really change in Iraq, and we need a big change to kick the occupiers out of the country,” said Abu Mohammed, a 30-year-old barber shop owner in Samarra, north of Baghdad. “I would like to show him the schools and hospitals and how the children and women suffer.”  

 on a side note, the trip is being paid for by tax payer money … because it is a trip mccain undertakes as a member of the armed services committee … hm, yes, i see (so much for maverick, he is just another washington politician who takes any money he can get). 

Mr. McCain has said the trip is not primarily political. He told reporters last Friday: “I do want to emphasize again that the three of us are going as members of the Armed Services Committee.”But on Thursday, Mr. McCain will attend a $1,000-per-plate fund-raising lunch at a home in London. His campaign has said that Congress would be reimbursed for the political parts of the trip, including the fund-raiser in London.  

maybe athletes will boycott the china olympics

back in the 80s it was easy for western nations to boycott the 1980 olympics in the soviet union since there wasn’t really anything to fear — there were no economic ties between the western nations and communist, eastern block nations. the only consequence would have been a military one, but that was unlikely.

now we are facing the olympics in china.  it is quite obvious that china has its own views on human rights, freedom of speech … and other western values. and it is not shy to show the world its disregard for humans as we could witness back in the 90s and can now these days in tibet witness again.

countries (like the US, germany, and others) have already condemned the extremely violent behavior of the chines police and army in tibet over the last week, but at the same time these countries after asking for restraint have made it clear that they will not consider boycotting the olympics. and the reason for that is clear, the west is much to dependent on china and can’t afford to piss china off.

this pretty much leaves a public outcry only to those the would watch the olympics and the athletes. just like steven spielberg’s boycott to help china plan the festivities, the athletes have a unique opportunity  to show the world that china is far from being the friendly nation it wants us to believe it is.

obama brings fun back into politics

in today’s politics it doesn’t happen a lot that a politician speaks his/her mind or that they god forbid are sarcastic/funny. but obama broke with this today. npr had this story on one of their blogs. after the clinton campaign sent out another information leaflet (or however you want to call it) the obama camp just took the clinton paper and annotated it. the result couldn’t have been more true and more fun to read.

To: Interested Parties From: Clinton Campaign Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far — every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans — all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama’s support has dropped among all these groups.

[That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn't make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we're ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama’s readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders — those making up their minds in the last days before the election — have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us ... I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]

[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]

oh when can we have an intelligence test for elected politicians?

watching this interview with rep. steve king i only have two questions 1. what kind of idiots voted this guy into office?2. in a country that requires a license to drive a car, why can’t we have a intelligence license for those people that make quite important decisions about the future and well-being of this country?     so terrorist will be dancing in the streets. can i just say something, even if they would, there would be far less of them dancing in the streets that have been dancing in the streets over the last 8 years of the bush administration. in case this guy hasn’t figured this out yet (but then he actually admits that he has no idea what he is talking about and just wanted to start a thought process to better understand the middle east) each day the US is fighting muslims in iraq and has troops stationed in saudi arabia terrorists are dancing in the streets and muslims are waiting in line to sign up to be the next suicide bomber. then he goes on about saying that what he said (and i assume he means the part about terrorists dancing in the street if obama wins) is objectively true and has not been negated by anyone else. well it hasn’t because first of all i assume no one takes this guy serious (with the exception of fox news) and second something in the future can NOT be objectively true. it has not happened yet. there is no date set yet for dancing in the streets. if rep king is aware of any “dancing in the streets obama victory parties” i would like to see those invites. if this event would have happened in the past, yes, than it could have been objectively true (although very few people would probably call it objectively true, but just true).