That's a total of 19341 pages in 49 books 1 over 151 days, or one book every 3.08 days and 128 pages per day. Combined with the August numbers, it's 46023 pages in 113 books over 365 days, or one book every 3.23 days and 111 pages per day. The genre breakdown for the year looks like this:
3 Biography
26 Fantasy
10 General fiction
6 General or miscellaneous non-fiction
6 History
21 Historical fiction
1 Horror
2 How to
10 Mystery
3 Science
22 Speculative (science) fiction
3 Technical non-fiction
I was pleasantly surprised that nearly 60% of my reading was neither fantasy nor science fiction; I guess I'm broadening my horizons after all. I can't imagine that I'm ever going to read this much in a single year for a long time, if ever again.
I'll renew my prediction from last February that the Democratic ticket will be Hillary Clinton for President and Barack Obama for Vice President. To that I add that they'll win. I don't know what will happen for Republicans, and I don't much care as long as it's not Giuliani; he's both scary and seems to have a chance of winning. Mitt Romney isn't scary (just disagreeable), and Mike Huckabee won't win.
While looking up something else, I found a handy chart1 showing the age distribution of people in the United States (broken up by 5-year groups, using 2000 Census data). It looks like people about my age (± 2 years) are in the lowest population cohort except among the elderly 2. I wonder what the consequences of that are. One thing appears to be that it was a lot easier to get into competitive universities because there was less competition. Perhaps the same will be true of jobs seeking a particular experience level. I imagine being in a statistical minimum like that would have primarily beneficial effects like those I mentioned, but I don't really know.
I've gotten a lot of mileage out of Craig's List. Here's what I've learned:
Always deal in person and in cash.
The phone is quicker than email.
To get the best deals, you have to respond fast. You also have to invest your time and watch the list for a while before pouncing.
There's someone for just about anything if it's free, whether it's broken floor tiles, used peanut oil, or ancient computer parts.
On the other hand, for things that cost money, it's generally a buyers' market.
You should never buy appliances, consumer electronics, children's clothes, toys, some tools, and some computer parts at retail. Even the Austin list, which is probably no more than a medium-sized one, has a lot of pretty decent items. I scored an excellent dishwasher for just $100.
You get extra for things that are "new in box."
When buying gift cards or store credit, meet the seller at the store in question so you can verify the quantity. In some cases, like with Whole Foods, you can just call a 1-800 number and verify, but since you need to meet the seller somewhere anyway... Gift cards usually go for 85 cents on the dollar, but it can be less for more obscure retailers (or from more desperate sellers; today I got $100 of J. Crew gift cards for $50 from an unemployed seller).
Whenever possible, put up a picture of the item for sale. Unless you're selling a generic commodity like an icemaker hose, people are going to want to know what it looks like.
In your subject, state what the item actually is (blue jeans, a drill, a microwave, etc.). It seems obvious, but people often forget it. Also include the two or three key attributes of the item, whether color, manufacturer, or function.
Describe the item thoroughly. Don't just say "Dishwasher $75." Where applicable include the manufacturer, model, color, size, condition (cosmetic and functional), count, expiration date, whether necessary parts are included.
Always make sure you include a way to contact you; I suggest using their email forwarding to a secondary email address that you check frequently.
If you have multiple items of a similar type to sell, like toddler boy clothes, list them together. If they're significantly different, like a hand mixer and a rocking chair, post separate listings. This is true even if you have 20 items (though you might want to stretch it out). I have little interest in scanning through a posting that says "Lots of stuff for sale;" there are enough posts in a day that I just read the titles.
Manufacturers are mostly interested in selling their current product line; it can be hard to find specifications and manuals for items even 2 years old (like my dishwasher). That's just the way it is.
The literacy level is appalling.
People will flake out. You'll get an inquiry and then never hear from that person again.
When arranging a meeting, go beyond just picking a place to meet. Specify (say) which entrance and exchange physical descriptions (including clothing). Always get a cell phone number.
Make appointments for a specific time rather than a rough time range, even when people are coming to your house. You can loosen this for free things that you're going to leave in front of your house, but you still want an idea so you don't have a box of broken tiles sitting on your lawn for a week.
Sometimes people will try to change the deal when you meet, figuring that you'll give up $5 or whatever when you're face-to-face with a willing buyer. These people are jerks. Don't bend, and definitely don't try it.
Make sure you have the exact amount in cash before buying. If selling, make sure you have plenty of small bills for making change. You don't want your buyer to have to go somewhere to get change; she might not come back. This doesn't apply when meeting at retail stores that can make change, of course.
Keep a record of your transactions. Note down what the item was, the cost, the other party, the date, the location, and the time (if you feel like being especially complete).
Respond to every inquiry, if only to say "Sorry, it's gone."
Respect first-come first serve unless you explicitly stated "best offer."
Uma likes this obnoxious Berenstain Bears book about Easter. In one part of the story, Mama Bear chides Sister Bear for thinking holidays are all about stuff, whether it's presents or special food. Now, I realize these are fictional characters, but it's a common sentiment. If they're anything like most people, that's because most of the parents' emphasis is on the stuff. How much time do you spend at Thanksgiving thinking about all the good things in your life? And how much time do you spend stuffing your face (or preparing to stuff your face, or cleaning up after stuffing your face, etc.)? How much time do you spend on presents at Christmas vs thinking about the birth of Jesus?1 The kids think what matters is the stuff because the parents demonstrate it through their actions. If they want kids to pay attention to the sentimental stuff, then they'd better demonstrate it through their actions.
Of course, I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing Thanksgiving as an excuse for a party and gorging yourself. That's fine by me. For us, Christmas is all about tacky decorations, shiny lights, and presents. I'm A-OK with that. But if you're not, make sure your actions reflect it. Kids are smart. They can tell what you think is important. Don't blame them for getting it right when you got it wrong.
I'm standing by my Hillary as President, Obama as VP prediction, even after her Iowa loss, and even after she loses in New Hampshire today. I just don't think Obama has staying power. I know Clinton's performance in the debate is going to hurt her 1, but that'll blow over; what won't blow over is that Obama only has 2 years in the Senate as a qualification. As much as he's supposed to be the candidate of change, I don't see much different between him and the mainstream Democratic platform. He and Clinton aren't that far apart. I think that will become more evident. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't everything.
I certainly don't want Hillary Clinton to win; this is just a prediction. She's also very close to the core Democratic platform, which, like that of the Republicans, is just a bundle of positions lacking conceptual coherence and unifying principles. The people who are consistent and make sense are the ones I like, and are inevitably longshots: Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul.
So. Obama's going to run out of steam. Clinton is going to be humbled but win through, and the two of them will unite to make an unstoppable pair. I don't think John Edwards can make it, and this time being #2 is not going to be good enough; the Clinton/Obama synergy is just too strong. Bill Richardson was just in the race to become VP, which is also not going to happen. He's got the most impressive resume of the field, but that's apparently not important, and Obama has trumped his Hispanic heritage. Joe Biden I think was running just for fun.
Of the Republicans, the main thing that matters to me is that Giuliani lose. He's such a bellicose law-and-order authoritarian. Somehow Americans seem to like him in spite of his many, many flaws. George W. Bush got lucky with September 11th, but then screwed up the aftermath; Giuliani got similarly lucky, but term limits scooted him out of there before he could screw it up, too. Romney I could live with, but I don't see him winning. Huckabee kind of worries me, but I don't think he can win, either. The other one to watch seems to be McCain; he has a broad appeal in spite of his staunch conservatism, and could give Clinton/Obama a run for their money.
If I had to summarize my prognostications, I'd put my dollars on Clinton/Obama beating McCain/Huckabee in November by a respectable but not large margin.
1 I suspect Obama is mellower because he's had to deal with 2-year olds much more recently
I've mentioned my preference for longshot candidates Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul. I'd also consider a 3rd party vote for Michael Bloomberg if he ran. The conventional wisdom is that I'm throwing my vote away. That's not just wrong, it's backwards: you're throwing your vote away if you vote for a mainstream candidate. When you do that, all you're doing is affirming the status quo. I don't know many people who think the status quo is as good as it's going to get. Votes aren't like bets; you don't get anything, regardless of how your candidate does. That's why the winnerism of American politics is so confusing to me; what exactly do you get for having cast your vote for the eventual winner? It seems like you get nothing, because that candidate was going to win with or without you (it's a country of 300 million people, after all).
For mainstream candidates, what matters is winning. Every vote beyond a plurality for a mainstream candidate might as well be an abstention or a spoiled ballot. Bush's solid victory in 2004 bought him nothing; in fact, it lead to overreaching that squandered the "political capital" Bush thought he had. Once a candidate has one, more voters piling on is irrelevant. Another way of saying that is that the average vote for the winner isn't worth a full vote.
For the smaller candidates, what matters isn't winning so much as making a respectable showing 1. Every vote for one of those candidates is another iota of credibility to the views they espouse. You're not throwing your vote away like when you vote for the candidates of the establishment; you're sending a message that you reject the whole establishment. You're keeping them on their toes, knowing that there are votes out there who can't be taken for granted.
Jessica's just hit week 30. Maybe it's a little early, but I want to hear predictions: sex, weight, date of birth. As a reference point, Uma was a girl, 6 lbs 9.6 ounces, born 15 days before the precisely useless due date. Whoever guesses closest gets... well, I'll figure out something.
On NPR on the way home, they were interviewing some New Hampshire women about their votes in the primaries. One exchange appalled me. This is my best recollection of what they said:
Interviewer (to a Hillary voter): The polls all said that Clinton was going to lose. Why do you think they were so wrong? Do you think they underestimated women voters?
Interviewee: Yes, I think they did underestimate women voters.
W... T... F... How the hell does she know? In fact, what does that even mean? And this is NPR, which is better than most other mainstream media outlets. That's just pathetic.
Being "a regular guy" - Given how uniquely varied and stressful the job of President is, we must seek out freaks for the job; it's just not for normal people.
Charisma
Creativity/Ideas - Ideas are like... belly buttons. We don't lack for ideas.
"Electability"
Empathy
Endorsements
Personality - Insofar as we can even get a realistic picture of someone who we only know about through carefully selected and edited video clips of that person performing a part in a very strange stage play
Public speaking skills
Race
Sex
"Strong leadership" - I honestly believe people don't even know what they mean by that.
"Values"
What does matter:
Good judgment
Good policies
Open-mindedness - which overlaps with...
Pragmatism
Principles - I am not contradicting myself when I put this one in the same bucket as Pragmatism; lots of policy choices don't involve a clash of principles.
Experience - which is necessary to demonstrate the above
This clip from a Clinton speech really annoys me. Watch:
C'mon, Hillary; your campaign is so carefully calculated, and you make a mistake like that? His name wasn't "Mahatma;" that was a title. His name was "Mohandas."
Anyhoo. The Indian joke itself doesn't bother me. I can't explain why.
People should be complaining about the spike in food prices. That's something more essential that the government can legitimately do something about, like eliminating the corn ethanol subsidy (since farmers are switching fields from other food crops to corn), eliminating other farm subsidies (so as not to prop up prices), and getting rid of tariffs (like on imported sugar).
I can feel it. Note that the image is actually deceptive; "high" cedar pollen are usually in the 1,000 range. If the image had been scaled properly, the bar would be many times longer.
Note that according to the qualitative judgment, the current 538 is still "high." The previous measurement was apparently even worse than I thought, being at least some 35 times higher than high.
Scientology indoctrination video. Remember, next time you hear "Scientologist," just replace it in your mind with the word "absolutely crazy." You may think you don't care, or that 10 minutes is too long, but really, you need to watch this video. When he laughs, it's kind of disturbing, and I've got no clue why he's laughing when he does.
"Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?
That man is not running for president.
The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.
Mr. Giuliani's arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn't share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.
The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city's and the country's nightmare to promote his presidential campaign."
I often get asked by non-vegetarians whether a vegetarian diet is healthy. To me it's a silly question, but now at least I can point to someone with a more extreme physical regimen on an even more restrictive diet doing just fine. The Wall Street Journal profiles NFL tight end Tony Gonzales, the 247 lb. vegan.
I've gotten relatively comfortable with plumbing and electrical work around the house. The one thing that aggravates me just as much as it always has is drywall. It's such an aggravation. I can't believe we haven't come up with anything better yet. The mess, the dust, the weight, the lack of strength, the tedious finishing... I hate drywall.
I have found that dabbing a little bit of petroleum jelly into paper cuts and similar injuries makes them sting a lot less. I use a cotton swab to make sure I don't spread it too widely, and then I put a bandage over it to make sure the jelly doesn't rub off. It especially helps on hands because they can get dried out and the skin flexes a lot. I got some fierce slices in my palm from ripping off laminate countertops (sharp edges), and this made it feel a lot better.
Florida gave me what I wanted: Giuliani got thumped. Again the NY Times got in some choice hits1, starting the article with: "Perhaps he was living an illusion all along." Also the more subtle "Voters seemed to embrace a man so comfortable wielding power..." Then: "Perhaps a simpler dynamic was at work: The more that Republican voters saw of him, the less they wanted to vote for him."
1 Although they belong in an editorial, not a news article
My pet theory is that Barack Obama entered the presidential field hoping his longshot bid would get him a VP slot, with that setting him up for a real run at the top office 8 years later. I don't think he really thought he'd have a shot at the nomination. I mean, c'mon, 7 years in the state legislature and 2 years as Senator 1? Obama's too smart to have expected to get much mileage out of that. He's hidden his surprise well.
1 At the time he officially became a candidate, 3 years now.
