Went to the doctor’s office today. Got a great report–blood sugar levels down to almost normal now (they had been creeping up), falling a significant amount since my last check-up 3 months ago, following a yearlong trend. Then I found a folder I thought I’d lost on my desk at work, and cashed in a ¥10,000 check that was in it (cable TV company rebate for joining). Then came home still early in the day, and had a nice & tasty dinner. Also, summer vacation started this week.

It looks like several states, at least, have found an answer to the problem of police misconduct being recorded and made public. The solution is simple: make it illegal to record a police officer. There’s a good (if at least slightly biased) article on this, outlining the legal state of public recording of officers over several states. Often the illegality is claimed under an extension of state wiretapping laws, which is not only a stretch, but also ironic in that in the past few years the government has more or less seen fit to ignore those laws in the recording of citizens’ private dealings. We can record you in your private conduct, but you can’t record us in our public conduct. Heinlein’s “public servant equals public master” rule at work.

The no-recording laws are disturbing also because they appear to be directly targeted at hiding police misconduct. It may still be legal to record in public, and you won’t be taken to task for recording police where nothing embarrassing is happening. But if the police do something out of line and they find out you’re recording it, then the line is crossed. Which, obviously, is the exact opposite of how it should be. Yes, not all of an incident may be caught on tape, and yes, the video might not allow citizen viewers to take in the whole picture and understand the nature of the job. But the answers to those issues are education and judgment made by informed persons; making recording a police officer a crime punishable with a prison sentence borders on Orwellian.

Take the video recorded by Anthony Gruber, detailed in this Baltimore Sun article. He had a helmet-mounted camera while driving a motorcycle, and was recording while driving down what appears to be a highway. Public location, not illegal to record there. The recording certainly makes it look like he was speeding, though. After he takes an exit, an unmarked car follows him, and when he comes to a stop behind traffic, the car pulls over and a guy in plain clothes jumps out and pulls a gun, shouting “get off the motorcycle!” three times and putting his hand on the motorcycle dashboard before identifying himself as state police. He does not begin by identifying himself as a police officer, does not immediately show his badge, does not simply keep his hand on his gun in case the motorcyclist goes for a weapon or does something else threatening. No, without any indication that he’s an officer, he just jumps out of the car and pulls his gun out. I don’t know about you, but that would scare the crap outta me. Maybe I just don’t know police procedure, but that seems pretty improper.

Here’s the thing, though. They guy did not start recording because he saw a police officer, he was just recording his driving. And as soon as he discovered the identity of the officer, he immediately complied with the order to stop his bike, and then took off his gloves and stopped the recording. In essence, he did not try to record the officer and stopped as soon as he found out. He was given a ticket on the scene and was let go, and almost certainly would not have been punished further by the police. But after he posted the video on YouTube, the police came and arrested him, confiscating his computer and other equipment. The police claim that the subsequent arrest is not retribution for embarrassing the cop, but few people are buying that. Those familiar with Maryland law say that the use of this statute–making an audio recording of someone without their consent–in a case such as this is unprecedented. The fact that the recording was accidental and was stopped as soon as the person was capable makes the arrest on these charges even more transparent.

What’s scary about this is that the tendency to make the recording of police illegal is not in the interest of public safety–the opposite is true, in my opinion–but to essentially protect the police in cases where they act improperly. It resembles the practice in many states of destroying all evidence in a capital case after the person has been executed, thus making it virtually impossible to prove that the person executed was innocent.

And we know that sometimes this kind of record is needed. Take the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., where it was pretty firmly established that the arresting officer filed an incorrect police report, misstating facts and exaggerating. Such police reports carry significant weight in court cases, but there is little doubt that these reports are, when there is improper police behavior, at the very least biased and very much subject to question. A video recording is powerful evidence for an arrest subject’s case in such situations. To remove these is to promote abuse.

Whatever the issues with recording police, banning recordings of public activity and arresting those who do so is not the answer. It smacks of a perpetual cover-up, and makes the public even more suspicious of police activity, not less.

Just got finished with a mountain of grading for three classes, in addition to studying for and taking a final exam in Introduction to Computer Programming, as well as some personal commitments. All went well–finished the grading my students on time, and aced the final exam in the programming class I was taking. Today, Sachi and I will do a bit of shopping, and I may take some time this afternoon to have my scooter checked out, and maybe even get one of those ten-dollar haircuts. Livin’ it large, what can I say.

OK, I’m ducking below the radar for a few days. I have a final exam in Introduction to Computer Programming tomorrow on Friday, a graduation ceremony Saturday, and grades are due Monday by noon–and I have a really tall stack of tests, assignments, and essays to grade by that Monday deadline. I may still appear to be active as I have 2 or three posts in the can and will probably drop them once a day or so, but otherwise I’m going dark until early next week. Then on Wednesday, I leave for the U.S.!

Sorry I have not blogged much as of late. There are a few reasons. First, I was hit by what I am not pretty confident was Swine Flu. The “cold” I had lasted just over a week, which was strange enough–but it also brought painful headaches, loss of appetite, and low energy levels–which I do not normally associate with colds. When I visited a GP on a related matter, the doc said that it was almost certainly H1N1.

After the flu, I simply had so much work backed up that I got swamped. I had a Writing class this semester, and those are always heavy-workload courses–primarily because of correcting all the drafts and assignments in between. Right at the time I got over the flu, two successive drafts of two successive essays–four in all–were due within just a few weeks, and I tend to be meticulous in how I mark the papers, using MS Word’s comment feature to write rather detailed notes, along with an analysis and instructions at the end of the essay.

Add to that a kind of political overload or burnout that I have not experienced since the 9/11 commission–more so this time, in fact. What do you do when the outrageous in the opposition party becomes the norm? How often can you express disbelief that Sarah Palin says something so obviously untrue that one has to be blind, deaf, and stupid not to notice? When the GOP’s SOP is to make up completely ludicrous bullcrap about Obama, how many times can you call them out on it before it becomes irrelevant? When Fox News fakes crowd images three times in two weeks, how can you point it out without becoming repetitive? When people like Glenn Beck make you actually miss relatively rational people like Ann Coulter, how can you apply any sense of scale to the insane garbage they spew? When right-wing common folk become thickly populated with tea-bagger, birthers, secessionists, and armed jerks spouting death threats against the president, it becomes near-impossible to place it within a rational context. When Palin, Bachmann, and Wilson become political icons of the right wing, how can you spend much time writing how deranged they are when it feels like you’ve done this dozens of times before–and then you check and discover you actually did? When virtually everything the right wing does is so over-the-top, farcically, mind-blowingly, incomprehensibly psychotic, fleeing from reason and rationality at speeds approaching that of light itself, they all red-shift into some amorphous blob of crazy which becomes painful to witness, let alone attempt to analyze and comment on in a venue such as this paltry little blog. It just begins to seem pointless.

As a result, I have had one of my driest blogging spells since I started this blog, missing eight of the last ten days.

Coming out of this, I have decided to make an effort to steer away from politics, which, I have to admit, has been dominating this blog as of late–and I’m probably losing people’s interest as a result. I’ll still do some commentary when I just can’t stop myself–hopefully not too often–but I will be making a conscious effort to focus elsewhere. Maybe the end of my semester, my new focus on computer programming, and my trip back home for Christmas will help in that regard. I’ll have to see.

In the meantime, please forgive both my recent obsession and my more recent absence; I hope to rectify both.

Sorry for my lack of blogging over the past week–I got hit with the Mother of All Colds this week. It lasted almost a full week, with severe congestion, sore throat, splitting headaches, and now bad coughs and laryngitis. Yeesh. Am just getting back to being semi-lifelike again.

Sorry to have been away for so long–maybe the longest break from blogging for five years. Sachi and I went to her hometown to meet the folks, and then took a few days in the resort town of Karuizawa nearby. Add in a day at the office, a few more days prepping for classes, and a dash of simple laziness here and there, and before you know it, a week has passed.

Back to the grind…

Frankly, I’m not even sure what the name of this restaurant is; it says “Hermion” at the main entrance, but “Epmeion” at the restaurant itself. (Web site here.) All I know is that we liked the restaurant a lot.

We found this place while walking around Athens. Out of Monastiraki Station, there is a narrow shopping street heading due east, named Pandrosou on the maps. Just before it hits Mnisikleous Street, you can see the entrance to the restaurant:

Just go down the small walkway, and there is a relatively secluded, quiet garden setup. We noted it along the way after having eaten a not-so-great McDonald’s lunch (we just wanted something familiar and hopefully clean), and thought it would make a nice dinner spot. In fact, when a helpful jeweler volunteered directions on the street to help us when we were lost, he noted that we had the card for the restaurant, and said it was a great place, that he always ate there himself.

And it was. First off, the waiters are great. They speak English very well, but most notably, they have a great sense of humor. Often joking, but never losing the touch of class that makes the restaurant special.

The food was excellent. They started us off with a bread roll that tasted very good, and some pruned olives along with herb-flavored cream cheese. We passed on the olives, but the cream cheese went terrific with the bread rolls. We ordered the Traditional Greek Salad, Tortellini a la Creme, and a Pork Souvlaki. For drinks, we accepted the offer of bottled water (not free, it’s 2 Euros) and two Heinekens; all drinks were ice cold.

The salad consisted of firm tomatoes, soft thick cucumber chunks, sliced peppers, onion, anchovies, a little lettuce, and a nice large pad of feta cheese. You can top this off with vinegar and olive oil, in the table. I usually go for a Caesar Salad, but this did nicely.

The main dishes were fantastic: the Tortellini had four different kinds of cheese and tasted it; it was delicious and quite filling. The Souvlaki was a pork shish kabob, six generous pieces served with a mix of small veggies including peas, corn and string beans, and a side of french fries. The pork was really good, and went very well with the tortellini. After eating that, we both felt very full.

After we finished, I asked for the check (“Only if you insist!” the waited asserted; I did, and he asked the head waiter to get the check in Greek, then added in English, “He insists!”), and they served us a nice liqueur which was faintly reminiscent of juniper, along with the bill.

The restaurant is a bit pricier than other places you might find, but really not that bad; our bill came to 41.20 Euros (about $54, or ¥5300), about what Sachi and I would expect to pay at a medium-to-cheap place in Tokyo. We did not choose the most expensive dishes by far, however–but they certainly were good enough for us! I don’t have any reference for other restaurants in Athens, but I have a feeling that it is well above par for its price range. But it felt a lot more expensive than it was.

If you’re in Athens and want to eat well, I’d recommend this place.

Well, that’s it folks. An unbroken, 2000-day streak of blogging, spanning more than five years.

I started this madness on a lesser scale back on August 5th, 2002, just when I secured the domain name. Like many, I started my blog as an outlet for my opinions in the wake of 9/11. At first, however, it was a blog in name only–I did not post regularly (just nine times in one month, from 8/5/02 to 9/1/02), and I stopped blogging because it was so much work–I had not yet discovered blog software, and so I wrote the entire code for the site by hand. (The original logo I made for the site at the time adorns the top of this post.)

Nevertheless, I maintained the domain name and in April 2003, figured out how to install Movable Type. I blogged for a bit, then broke off for my trip to Spain, and then came back, blogging several times a week, but not without breaks.

But then, on August 2, 2003, I started blogging daily. It was a conscious decision–I wanted to prove to myself that I could maintain a regular task. At that time, I had trouble when confronted with even mundane stuff, such as keeping a schedule book or regular exercise. Blogging without a break became kind of my demonstration to myself that I could keep up a regular activity. Plus, it was valuable to me in other ways: it helped sharpen my writing skills (one blog post made it into a college reader), and it forced me to be more read-up and knowledgeable about current events. While such writing was also an enjoyable catharsis, I didn’t have stuff to say every day, so it was often somewhat of a challenge to find topics to write about.

After a while, the streak took on a life of its own, and I didn’t want to break it simply because it was a streak. However, when I saw the five-year mark coming, I asked myself what I thought I was doing–after all, I didn’t intend to keep this up for the rest of my life! And if not at five years, then when would I stop? It’s not an easy thing to suddenly stop for no reason.

But I couldn’t stop at the five-year mark, not with the most momentous election in my life coming up three months later. But shortly beyond that was a different landmark, the 2000th-day anniversary, and I figured that that would serve quite nicely. It was only later that I realized that this would work out to be the day after Obama’s inauguration.

Not that I’m quitting blogging, or that the site is shutting down–far from it. I will continue to blog, just not every day–from now on, it’ll only be when I feel like it. That means that probably a lot of my traffic will switch to RSS, as it is of more use when you don’t know when new posts will appear.

Initially, I might not even stop posting daily, though I will stop writing daily. That is, I’m starting a new feature: Recycled BlogD (“Classic BlogD” sounds too pompous and clichéd), in which I’ll find what I think are still-readable posts from the past which are of some significance or interest, along with links to other posts of interest from the same period which didn’t make the “Recycled” cut. That ought to keep material appearing on a regular basis while not requiring me to blog every day. Considering that there are almost 70 months of posts (over 3,500 entries in all), even choosing only one out of every 30 or 40 would keep me going for a few months, even without any new blogging.

Also, I won’t quit blogging regularly, either–I’ll just be shifting focus. I’m going to try to switch to blogging for my college’s web site, combining posts on events and local news with articles on subjects of potential interest. Partly this is to increase student interest in the site, but it is also partly to increase search engine traffic. As I found out on this site, incoming traffic increases a lot when there is a good deal of content being produced; the more content you have on a wider variety of topics, the more traffic comes your way. It might be a good way of bringing more attention and publicity to the school.

More on all of this later. In the meantime, thanks for your readership, and don’t erase that bookmark–this site still has lots of life left in it, new stuff as well as recycled. Enjoy!

It’s early in the morning on a holiday, and someone decides to give you a phone call. Worse, they ring just long enough to drag you out of bed, but hang up (1) just as you pick up the receiver, and (2) just before the answering machine picks up, so you have no idea who it was trying to reach you at this time. It could have been urgent, or it could have been a wrong number or a salesperson. So now you’re tired but can’t go to sleep and are wondering what was so damned important.

Ever since the Shiba Inu Puppy Cam took off, there seems to be a new interest in Shiba Inus. This pleases Sachi to no end, because she just loves Shibas. Several Shiba cams have sprouted up since then, but most are on-and-off, more off than on. One that we’ve found that seems good is the West Chester Shiba Inu Cam. This one is with a white Shiba mother and what I believe is a sesame father.

Four of the pups are standard brown, but one is brown with white spots–something I’ve never seen in a Shiba before. I suppose the colors will change as it matures–I don’t think that marbled Shibas exist.

The owners of the original Shiba puppies are giving them away for free–not so with this new cam’s object. They’re selling their pups. I can only suppose that after the huge popularity of the San Francisco Shiba pups, a lot of people with litters coming are buying web cams and trying to figure how they can get bidding started or something.

Shibas, by the way, are good dogs but also quite quirky. They are good and loyal dogs, but not very sociable with outsiders unless carefully acclimatized while growing up. They have a strong hunting instinct, and so must be kept on a leash, or they’ll often bolt. They shed profusely twice a year, when they “blow” their coats–a tremendous amount of fur coming out in a very short period of time. They are also not very loud–they don’t bark much, though they do whine some and when extremely distressed, are said to emit something called a “Shiba scream,” something you reportedly do not want to hear.

Happy 50th Anniversary, Mom & Dad!

What’s going on with Obama’s nomination of Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security chief? Is Napolitano truly the best-qualified person for the job? Does it have to do with Napolitano being an early Obama supporter? Does she really want that job? Compared to being a governor, is DHS secretary a plum posting?

Here’s the thing: if Napolitano leaves office, Republicans run away with not one, but potentially two prizes. First, Napolitano would be replaced by a Republican lieutenant governor, and second, it would make it much more unlikely that Napolitano would run against John McCain for his Senate seat in 2010–not impossible, but much more unlikely. And Napolitano is the only candidate likely to knock McCain out and gain a seat for the Dems. So this move hands the GOP a governorship and helps them retain a Senate seat. What gives?

Is it purely coincidence that this news broke very soon after Obama met with McCain? Or am I just being overly suspicious here?

---

First it was automobile honchos flying luxurious and incredibly expensive private jets to Washington to ask for taxpayer money to bail out their companies. Now it’s bank executives bailing out with golden parachutes right before the parachutes expire with the acceptance of bailout money–robbing the institutions of substantial chunks of the money taxpayers are going to have to pump back into them. It’s as if the executives are brashly and unapologetically continuing their ways of opulent greed, not even trying to put on a show.

The auto execs are piling on the excuses for private jets, but none add up. Their primary excuse is one of security, but they only cite the dangers of kidnapping when the executives travel to dangerous countries. Excuse me? When was the last time someone was kidnaped on a plane or before they got to customs at an airport? Please. If special circumstances warrant extra security, then lease a plane, or make other arrangements. Another excuse is access to telephones and email–another BS argument, as first class on most airlines include such services. Another excuse is the ability to talk in private–as if this were really an unfixable dilemma for the short periods of time execs are in first class on a jet. Provisions can be made, easily, to get around any and all of these without paying tens of millions of dollars–now taxpayer dollars–to maintain a fleet of luxury jets, which are in fact nothing but a pricey perk.

---

Interesting about that SOFA pact that Bush arranged. It essentially committed the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq by 2011, laying out a distinct timeline for the exit of U.S. troops. Now, maybe Bush had no choice, and would have been in the tricky position of being told to get out of Iraq now if he hadn’t agreed to it. But essentially what it does is rob the Republicans of the chance to say that Obama was responsible for whatever bad stuff happened as a result of the U.S. pulling out of Iraq. They can no longer say that Obama lost the war and caused whatever havoc to erupt because he pulled the troops out–because Bush has now taken on the mantle of the one who pulled out the troops.

Of course, truth rarely gets in the way of Republican political attacks–they’ll still blame Obama for pulling out the troops, but it’ll be harder for them to make that stick. They’ll try to say that it’s how Obama pulled them out, or something he did or was responsible for along the way. Hell, they’re already blaming the recession on Obama, they’ll find some way to blame him for everything bad that happens, no matter how blatant the double-standard. Look at how they blamed Bill Clinton for “decimating” the military, when it was Bush 41 who did most of the cutting. Still, this SOFA agreement does take a good deal of the sting out of whatever attacks they want to launch in the future.

---

It seems that al Qaeda would have been much happier with John McCain. Obama’s election has al Qaeda rattled, as they have now lost a powerful recruiting tool and support mechanism. With Obama set to close down Guantanamo, put an end to torture, oversee the withdrawal of troops in Iraq, and re-brand the American image around the world, people in the Muslim world are a lot less likely to offer al Qaeda support or approval. Not to mention that Obama is set to re-focus American and international military efforts of the heart of al Qaeda’s operations and probably strengthen the investigative and prosecutorial efforts to curtail the organization’s activities.

---

This is quite something. Bush, at the G20 conference, joined the lineup of world leaders–but was conspicuously detached from all the greeting, hugging, and hand-shaking. As almost everyone else engaged in a great deal of enthusiastic welcoming, Bush simply walked past most of them, and everyone simply ignored Bush. A few times, Bush looked up at people in the upper row, as if to gauge wether or not a greeting was in order–and then walked on as no hand was extended to him. A CNN commentator likened Bush to the “most unpopular kid in high school.” Watch:

Sad.

---

Want some fun? Miss your old Super Mario Brothers game? Play Super Obama World.

I have always taken job hunting seriously. I feel that it’s something you have to take on whole-heartedly, not half-assed. Me, I hunt down all job resources I can find, weed and sort, schedule interviews (schedule a few throwaways first so you can get some practice in), research the job and the company as well as you can, dress up and arrive a few minutes early (not too early), so forth and so on. In the end, if you’ve done it right, then you will have a few good job offers at least, and can take your pick.

But nowadays I am on the other end of the process. Like I was ten years ago, I now find myself making, not reading, the classifieds listings and sorting through resumes. Between then and now were the blissful years of only working, but recently I was called back in for a spell to manage again for a while. And it is depressing to see what comes forth when you list a job.

I mean, seriously. Far more than half the applicants do not have the basic, bottom-of-the-barrel, “must-have” qualifications for the job. Okay, maybe they think that they’ll get lucky, maybe they hope that the employer is aiming too high. But some of these people clearly just shoot out resumes to everyone in sight–the scattershot approach. Clumsy. Messy. Maybe even desperate. But hey, at the very least, take the trouble to send a separate email to every employer instead of lumping them all together in the Cc list for all to see.

You wouldn’t believe how sloppily some people put together these things. This time around, we needed several different positions filled, and included several in the same ad. Very few specified which position they were applying for, even though the positions were widely variant; I wound up having to read the resumes closely and guessing which position the person is applying for. Sometimes I have to read really close, because the information is often muddled. Education histories don’t specify what major the person’s degree was in. Employment histories leave out vital details. Heck, one person didn’t even bother to add which city he lived in.

Reading these things, it really makes me want to write down a primer on how to write a good resume. So here goes. Note that this is for an average job calling for moderate experience and qualifications–if it’s a minimum-wage job, just send a one-pager; if it’s for Rocket Science, then maybe send a tome. But most times, it’s in between. Points to consider:

• Format Counts: as superficial as it may seem, careful attention to formatting makes a difference. Don’t use templates–anyone who reads resumes for a living has seen them all and can spot the people who use the standard forms. Use a good font–Optima for sans serif, Garamond for serif. I can’t explain why, but many outstanding applicants I have interviewed had Garamond resumes. Use character spacing, small caps, regular tab settings, the works. Try to make it look neat, organized, and elegant. How your resume looks tells the employer how important this is to you.
• (If by email) Save your resume as a PDF: send both MS Word and PDF formats if you must, but PDF preserves formatting perfectly, and is a universal format.
• Use a cover letter: a cover letter is like a thesis statement–it explains very quickly to the employer why they should hire you. Explain what position you are applying for, and list the basics as to why you’re qualified. The cover letter should be three medium-length paragraphs–not too brief, not too long. If you’re sending your resume by email, then give a truncated cover letter in the email, and a full one in the cover page of your resume.
• Avoid the clichés: don’t say that you’re a “team player,” or that you “want to make a positive contribution to the company.” (Yes, I actually get those.) Be a bit more original than that. Sculpt your patter to fit the position. Don’t go too far or else you’ll make your interviewer gag. Reign it in.
• Cover the basics: Put your name, full address, telephone number(s), email address, and all vital information on the resume. Sounds basic, but you’d be surprised at how many people mess up this stuff.
• Customize: don’t use the same resume for every application. Research each job you apply for. Find out something about the company and the job you are applying for, and rewrite that specific resume to match it. Several times I have gotten resumes that were obviously intended for a different job, and it makes the applicant seem like they don’t give a damn. Generalized resumes usually give a weaker impression.
• Make it easy for the employer to be impressed: I can’t tell you how many times I have had to scour resumes for any indication that the person has the qualifications for the job. It should all be apparent, right up front. Education first–be brief but informative. Degree, major, university, years, honors. Then employment history–but here’s where you have to be careful. Don’t just go listing every job you’ve ever had. Do you think I care if you were a waiter at a pizza joint if you are applying for a job as a graphic designer? Okay, if you leave all of that out then there will be big holes and the employer will wonder why. So categorize: list the positions relevant to the job you are applying for first, then list other positions later, under a different heading. But don’t make the employer sift through every part-time and temp job you’ve had in order to find the few jobs that show you have the experience they want.
• Be specific where it counts: When you list qualifications specifically relevant to the position, then you go into detail. Make sure they’re aware that you know how to do the job in question. If you are applying for a job managing a bookstore, then mention the specific duties you had when you worked for Barnes & Noble, but leave out the details of how you were the personal fitness trainer to that country & western singer, no matter how cool that was.
• Be thorough but brief: Don’t take 30 pages to list the stunning array of publications you’ve authored and seminars you’ve given. Keep it to 2 pages, maybe 3. One page is too short, often not giving me enough reason to be impressed; more than three is showing off. If you’ve got so much, list only the most impressive stuff, and then add a note that there’s more where that came from “upon request.” If they’re interested, they’ll request. If you absolutely must, then send a brief resume and an “extended” resume–don’t force them to read a novel.
• Add references: most jobs will want them, and they will check them. List them in your resume. If you have letters of reference, okay–but make sure to give email addresses and telephone numbers for them to check, and alert your reference people that they may be contacted.
• Have everything ready, on request: anticipate what the employer might ask for. Have copies of every degree, every college transcript, every letter of reference, every supporting document you can think of, ready to fax/email/carry in upon request. They will ask for it; “I’ll have to look into getting that for you” is less impressive than “here, if you want the originals let me know and I’ll get them for you as soon as I can.”
• Spell check: nothing says “don’t hire me” more than spelling errors on your resume. Don’t just check for the squiggly red lines, actually read the thing, several times, and look for any errors, in spelling, wording, style, etc.

That’s everything that comes to mind right now. Follow these rules and your resume should be in the top 5 percent at least. As depressing as these resumes sometimes get, I always have the assurance that if I ever need to look for a job, I will most definitely stand out amongst the applicants.

This morning we did a redesign of the office where I work. Previously, the office had been designed purely on paper–we (Okay, I) had no sense in advance of the physical space save for speculation based on measurements alone, and had to create the layout halfway blind. Because of this, requests for equipment such as more office computers won out over spacing. We all thought it looked good on paper, but in practice, it was way too crowded. The spaces between desks were underestimated as people tended to naturally push away from their desks far more than I had guessed; additionally, I had not taken into account the constant conferencing of teachers with their students, who would grab nearby chairs and cluster in an area. As a result, the office was far too crowded, and avenues of movement were constantly being blocked, in addition to other problems.

Today’s redesign was a vast improvement; by getting rid of two cabinets and two computer desks we really did not need, we were able to move more desks to the wall areas and instead of two desk islands, reduced it to one–and now the office looks hugely improved. One tall partition that used to be in an island in the middle of the room is now removed, making the room seem larger and more open. It looks a hell of a lot better and should work a lot better as well.

There is also one feature of the room which I have always liked: the allowance for wiring under the floor. The room’s carpet is laid down in squares about a foot and a half to the side; they adhere to the sticky of small wood panels beneath. The wood panels cover an array of styrofoam blocks with channels in them, and this allows for wires to pass beneath the floor. Electric and computer network cables can be run to anywhere in the room, popping up to serve any desk or station.

The same is true in the computer lab I work in. I have to assume that this is a standard design in a lot of offices and other rooms, but I had never seen it before I started working at my college–few people realize these floors are here or how they work–and always thought it was a very clever and useful design.

Via Andrew Sullivan’s site, here are the two candidates’ messages on how to fix the economy:

Quite a difference. Obama’s plan:

1. Reform tax system with $1000 tax break to middle-class families, not the rich;
2. Real regulation that protects your investments and pensions;
3. Fast track “energy made in America plan” to end dependence on Middle East oil;
4. Crack down on lobbyists;
5. Bring a responsible end to war in Iraq so money can be spent on America.

McCain’s Plan:

1. Reform Wall Street
2. Fix Washington

This is better than Obama’s plan because:

1. His “opponent’s” solutions are only “talk and taxes.”

How stark can it get? One lays out a 5-point plan (with a link to a web site with a great many details on how this will be accomplished), and the other says he’ll “fix things” without saying how, while bragging that he’s “taken on tougher guys” than Obama.

I’m sorry, but if you’re voting for John McCain to reform the economy better than Barack Obama, then you’re a complete idiot.

Me, I’ve seen my stock price fall a lot chiefly because of market pressures due to Bush/McCain deregulation. No more, thanks. The economy has gone far better under Democrats than under Republicans for a very long time. Let’s stop the BS and turn the economy around, something possible under Obama but not under McCain.

Carly Fiorina, CEO of HP, recently got into trouble when she said that Sarah Palin couldn’t run a corporation. She quickly amended that to say that she was talking about specific business credentials, and that John McCain (who was responsible for the BlackBerry, don’t you know), Barack Obama, and Joe Biden were similarly unqualified.

That brought me to think about exactly that question–how would each of the four perform as a chief executive of a corporation? Having no experience in or knowledge of the job or the environment, let me give my completely unqualified assessment, and see if you agree.

McCain would be the closest thing to a pointy-haired boss; especially in a tech corporation, he would likely not understand what he was selling. He would probably lead by whim more than by far-sighted planning, and would probably be easily influenced by those around him, doing either the last thing someone told him was a good idea, or the thing that the most people on his senior staff thought was a good idea. His mercurial temper would not help. He might have a few priorities and directions he would want to go in, but these would be limited in scope and importance. He would be uninspiring overall–workers would be less than impressed with grampaw’s war stories, and more affected by his poor speaking style. His health would spark concerns that would dampen (or, I suppose, spark) stock prices, and people would always be asking about who’s next in line to take over.

Palin would be the usurper, the lightweight that shot up to the top for a variety of reasons not having much to do with actual talent. Though sharp and ambitious, she would not be the productive type; she would have gotten to where she was over the backs of others she tore down along the way, or by the helping hand of those above who favored her. There would be widespread concern about how capably she would govern, and while she might win over the PR crowd, the professionals would have strong doubts. The social pages of the newspapers might herald her self-proclaimed accomplishments, but those in the know would laugh at the claims and understand her for the lightweight she is; look to the boring columns in the financial sections to read far-less-optimistic reviews. Those working for the company would be unhappy–people in any management position would be in constant fear of being fired (except for the neophytes, cronies, and kiss-ups), and those below would be wondering what draconian edicts would restrict their working conditions next. She would bring light to the company, but not progress, efficiency, or productivity.

Biden would be the college-professor type of CEO–a good deal of knowledge and experience, but otherwise uninspiring. He might miss the big picture for the details, and some would see him as ineffectual. While some workers would be comfortable with the low-key professional, others would be worried about whether or not this leader could take the business where it needs to go, and whether the big boss had what it takes to sell the company and make it thrive. Biden would have connections, but not necessarily the power to bring the company to the heights expected of it. He would be far preferable to McCain or Palin, but would just not be the type who would make a company a great one. The corporation he ran would be as low-key as he is–getting by, doing OK, but never in the big leagues.

Obama, while a new face, would be the only one who would really do well as a CEO. While relatively inexperienced, he would have two necessary things that any of the other three would not: the charisma to drive the company and sell the product, and the intellect to grasp what the company needs to do and how to do it. While Obama technically has no executive experience, he did start from virtually nothing and build a multi-hundred-million-dollar organization which took on and took down one of the biggest, if not the biggest political dynasty around. Obama is, in fact, closer to a self-made dotcom startup that offers a great new product that everyone wants to try. It might be heavy on flash and style, and it will have bugs, but still has the substance to sell. There is the same effect in both cases–people who like the product say it’s really great, and the naysayers quickly tire of the fans, exaggerate the expectations, and then try to shoot down the company for not being 100% perfect and delivering a product of god-like perfection. But the product is still solid and sells well. Obama is similar to Steve Jobs–someone with very good business intuition and the public persona to sell it. Everyone working for him might wonder if he could take on Microsoft after leaving Dell in the dust, but they’d be optimistic about the stock options and excited about the person leading their corporation.

Thoughts?

Went on a quick-stop birdwatching trip today, amongst a variety of other tasks that had to be done to prepare for the wedding. We visited the Radio Road lake by the water treatment plant in Foster City, it being a quick and sure way to see lots of birds in the very little time we had budgeted for this. I offer most of these without comment…

I was surprised to find a Killdeer in among the other sandpiper-types.

These are probably just Barn Swallows. I didn’t have a bird book today, nor would I have had the time to use one to look all of these up…

Here are a whole bunch of birds in flight; the first, a virtual cacophony of birds, is available in a larger version.

Finally, Sachi spotted this unusually large visitor to the Radio Road Lake–a Pelican.

Here’s what Obama said on the campaign trail recently, something that he’s been saying for months:

“That’s not change. That’s just calling something that’s the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It’s still going to stink, after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

No problem, right? Been saying this for months. Talking about McCain and his policies. On the attack, but nothing untoward. Even Republicans regularly use this expression.

Well, get a load of how the McCain campaign reacted:

“Senator Obama uttered what I can only describe to be disgusting comments, comparing our vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, to a pig.”

Are. You. Kidding. Me.

The claim is that Palin is “the only one of the four — the presidential and vice presidential candidates — who wears lipstick,” according to the spokesperson for the Palin camp.

This comes just days after the McCain campaign cried “sexism” after the Obama campaign did nothing more than criticize policies and judgment by the McCain campaign. It is also reminiscent of an attempt by McCain to play the Age Card–when Obama noted that McCain was straying from his promises and doing things that were not above board, he used the expression “losing his bearings,” which the McCain campaign then angrily denounced as a slur against McCain’s advanced years.

Essentially, they are doing nothing more than using every single opportunity to take an Obama statement and stretch it to incredibly ludicrous extremes so they can then take angry offense at what a cad he is.

If that’s all there was for the day, that would be one thing. But look at the visual the McCain campaign is now using to attack Obama:

They’re claiming that Obama’s “one accomplishment” in Illinois was to teach kindergarten kids about sex, making him out to be some kind of pedophile. Of course, the legislation–aside from not being the only thing Obama did in Illinois–was about pre-existing sex education classes that already exist in K-12 education, a generic category referring to any pre-college material–in this case, clearly referring to teens. To say that this is “teaching comprehensive sex education to kindergartners” is outrageously false. Not to mention, the bill in question was to take existing sex ed classes for teens and focus them more on STDs, on warning teens about the dangers of sex. McCain’s not just making egregious lies here, he’s making perverse ones at that. Note the images of kindergartners in the ad–how utterly obscene can you get?

Anybody who supports McCain should be ashamed and disgusted. These people are scum.

First Fox’s Steve Doocy said it, then Cindy McCain. Now, John McCain himself is backing up the claim.

What is the claim? That Sarah Palin has foreign policy experience because Alaska is not that far away from Russia. I swear to god, I am not kidding, I did not make that up, I am not exaggerating this one tiny little bit, McCain actually said exactly that:

GIBSON: But as you know, the questions revolve really around foreign policy experience.

Can you honestly say you feel confident having someone who hasn’t traveled outside the United States until last year, dealing with an insurgent Russia, with an Iran with nuclear ambitions, with an unstable Pakistan, not to mention the war on terror?

MCCAIN: Sure. And one of the key elements of America’s national security requirements are energy. She understands the energy issues better than anybody I know in Washington, D.C., and she understands.

Alaska is right next to Russia. She understands that. Look, Sen. Obama’s never visited south of our border. I mean, please.

So she is experienced.

Again, I swear to you by all I believe, I did not make that quote up. It’s 100% real. It is fully in context, I didn’t cut anything out in the middle or change any of the words. Check out the transcript yourself.

Wasilla is 700 miles from the closest part of Russia, Juneau is 1220. When you change that to any relevant part of Russia, then we’re talking thousands of miles. But let’s be generous and call it 700 miles. Just living that distance away from Russia apparently gave Sarah Palin all the experience and knowledge she needs to become president of the United States.

Just by the 700-mile rule, I am a “foreign policy expert” on not only Russia, but on North Korea, South Korea, and China. I am much more qualified that Palin! Plus, I have executive experience–I have run the branch campus of my college. So I have “run something,” as Giuliani just defined as also a necessary part of the presidential package.

In any case, it looks pretty certain now that they have no intention of dumping Palin, they are running with what they’ve got. They have their talking points, stupid as they are. They are leading with the “small-town soccer mom” personal appeal, and they are going with the laughable “executive experience” charge and are trying to make it real through big-lie tactics–repeat the lie often with a serious demeanor and get upset when anyone calls you on it–and now they have a defense set up, namely that any criticism against Palin is sexist. They’re suited up and ready to go. All that remains is to see how unabashedly the media plays along with their incredible line of BS.