Richard Florida of The Atlantic highlights a new report finding that the good people of Amsterdam use their bikes more than their cars on a daily basis, making the bicycle the primary mode of transportation in the city. As a fellow Boston biker, he recognizes the big improvements that have been made for bicycle commuters in the city over the past decade.

From my four years in the city, I'll have to agree to some extent. The Comm. Ave. bike lanes were definitely a huge help to those of us riding, making drivers more aware of our presence and finally getting us some respect on the roads. Not to say it was a perfect experience - cars would still double park in the bike lane, swing their doors open without looking, cut bikes off - but I felt like things did improve.

BU did a good job taking advantage of this too, responding to students' needs for more bike racks across campus as more and more of the student population used their bikes to travel up and down the mile and a half stretch of Comm. Ave. that BU dominates. But as Florida notes, U.S. cities still have a long way to go get where Amsterdam is - just watch the video with his post of bike commuter traffic in Amsterdam and try to find anywhere in the North America that looks like that.

I think there are two issues that really need to be addressed for Boston to make a big step. One that they are already doing is creating bike lanes and bike/pedestrian pathways that can service the entire city. The Esplanade and new Greenway are good first steps in creating this kind of infrastructure as major bike/pedestrian traffic areas, and then creating bike lanes along the major thoroughfares of the city like Comm. Ave., Beacon St., Mass. Ave., and others will help encourage people to commute with bikes rather than cars. If there's a strong push for more safe (and secure) bike parking areas across the city, I think Boston will be on the right track in improving its infrastructure to become a great biking city.

The second part I think needs to be education - teaching both drivers and bikers how to ride safely on the road together. Part of this could be done as a section of drivers' education courses - when 16 year olds are getting their drivers licenses, include a portion of the time covering both how to ride a bike safely in the city, what the bike laws are, and how to drive in a car while safely driving on the road with bikers. Another effort could also be made by the city's universities to offer a low-credit course or two on biking, including information about bike safety, laws, and maintenance. I'm sure with the ever-increasing number of college students who are riding bikes as a means of transportation in one of the biggest college towns in America, such a push would be welcomed and ultimately be a big success.

Boston has the rare potential to be one of the first cities in America to embrace biking as a true alternative to commuting by car or public transportation, becoming both a greener and fitter city in the process. I can only hope it takes advantage of it.

Opening the Oscars

Dan over at The Eighth Samurai has a post up highlighting the changes that are being made to the Academy Awards (Oscars), and some of them are pretty significant. The biggest news comes in the Best Picture category, which will extend nominations to ten films for the first time since Casablanca won Best Picture in 1944, and doubling the field of competition for the award. Dan explains why this is a game-changer:

"This will not only give the rightful recognition to those films who deserve more attention but make it an interesting competition. I am very much looking forward to the first Best Picture nomination for a Pixar film going to Up, as well as some other contenders that might have received the shaft were it not for this increase. Films like Away We Go, Watchmen, and the forthcoming Public Enemies, Inglorious Bastards, Where the Wild Things Are, and I am even holding out for Judd Apatow's Funny People."

"So you say you want a revolution?" V

For those who haven't been following it, The Daily Show sent correspondent Jason Jones to Iran for ten days just prior to their "election" and the subsequent upheaval that ensued. And lucky for you, Comedy Central has been kind enough to compile them on one page here.

(Hat Tip: Chris Bodenner at The Daily Dish)

The Audacity of Pitney

Last week during President Obama's presser, something kind of crazy happened. I noticed it at the time, but didn't think that it would become this big issue. Whoops.

For his second question of the presser, President Obama called upon Huffington Post blogger Nico Pitney to ask a question. Pitney has been one of the best sources of raw information about what is happening in Iran and analysis of that information into something usable and understandable in the scheme of things. Having been in contact with actual Iranians in the middle of their crisis, Pitney had been accumulating questions directly from Iranians in the unlikely case he was called upon at the presser.

The Obama team was made aware of this, and informed Pitney the night before the presser that he may be called upon by the President to ask a question. Pitney then made a solicitation across various Farsi social networks to submit questions to him from Iranians, and in the case he was called upon he could ask a question from a person on the other side of the world who would NEVER have been able to ask it of the President of the United States.

So Pitney is called upon second, asks "his" question (and a doozie of a question it was, asking the President under what terms and conditions he would consider the Iranian government of Ahmadinejad legitimate enough to promote relations with), and the President does a pretty good job of dodging the question. But that's not the story.

The story is that there is traditionally a White House Press Corps pecking order of asking questions, beginning withe the wire services (AP, Reuters), to the network news, to the newspapers. As one can see, Nico Pitney and Huffington Post are not in this order, so to jump up to the second question after the AP is a little bit of a coup. At the same time, the AP's question was on Iran so it seemed like a good segway for Pitney to ask a question from an Iranian. And it was a good question. So no big deal, right?

Well, not for some, with conservative groups lambasting how this undermines the free press and that bloggers are partisan hacks (Thanks, by the way). The loudest of these critics has been Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. Milbank accuses the Obama administration and Pitney of working in cahoots, which is bad because:

"it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised."

He goes on to say how staged Obama's questions are, and how the press treats him so gently and with such empathy.

Wah wah. Pitney did his work, and because the medium he works through is open to all the Obama team picked up on it and thought that this was a good way to take advantage of the new media to do something a little unorthodox and outside the box that is Beltway media coverage. If the Administration had told Pitney to ask a certain question, then that's being staged. But they didn't - Obama could have called on him and he could have asked a question about health care or the President's smoking habits. Pitney, as a journalist, felt that asking a question about Iran from Iran was the best question he could ask. It was a good question too, remember, since the President had to use the five D's to get through it. So to refer to Pitney as some sort of hack blogger is just absurd.

And giving the question to a journalist who works in the same medium that has been so vitally important to the Iranian uprising I think says something too, that the Obama Administration recognizes that the world of media is going through a revolution. There are actually some superficial similarities that could be drawn between the media revolution and what is happening in Iran, most notably the use of the Internet as a medium to undermine the pretentious authority and elitism of the establishment. But that's for another post.

Ultimately, it looks more to me like there's a case of jealousy here. Seems like Adam Serwer (covering for TNC) of The American Prospect hits it right here:

"I'm not of the opinion that bloggers make old school shoe-leather reporters obsolete. Not by a long shot. But someone like Milbank? He's a rotary phone. And I think he knows it."

If you don't want this to happen again, MSM, then lose the sense of self-entitlement and start doing the kind of hard work and digging around that Pitney was doing to earn him his question.

UPDATE: Conor Clarke shows why the Right might want to not turn this into another "Liberal Media Conspiracy," and Yglesias thinks it's all about "status anxiety."

Video of the Day

SOLSTORM - Auroras in Norway from Terje Nesthus on Vimeo.

(Hat Tip Andrew Sullivan)

The Green Line Grudge at Fenway?

Well, this would easily make my New Year.

The Limit of the Internet?

CNN.com has an article up about how the death of Michael Jackson created a ridiculous amount of web traffic yesterday afternoon. Of course, in typical, sensationalizing, MSM-not-understanding-the-new medium fashion, they title it "Jackson dies, almost takes Internet with him," and begin the article with:

How many people does it take to break the Internet? On June 25, we found out it's just one -- if that one is Michael Jackson.

They then go on to talk about the respective websites that were rushed with traffic.

Here's my beef: it didn't "almost" take out the Internet, okay? It caused some sites to become backed up and crash, but the Internet didn't "break." And let's review the importance of the sites they mention:

+ Google News slowed down, but didn't crash, and it only slowed down for those trying to find information about Michael Jackson. Google News is important, but I wouldn't say any more important than any of the vast menagerie of services operated by Google.

+ TMZ.com, an entertainment news (tabloid rag) site had outages. Whoop-di-doo. Not breaking the Internet.

+ Perez Hilton's blog. See TMZ.

+ Twitter crashed. Now this one I can see being an issue, but only for the people of Iran who are using it as a way to organize and combat the oppression of their illegitimate government. For almost all other tweeters posting "RIP Michael Jackson," not really a big deal. So Twitter is ahead of the curve on this one, but the Internet isn't broken yet.

+ Wikipedia was "temporarily overloaded." I can see being an issue for all those summer school students trying to write research papers. But the Internet is big, and Wikipedia isn't the only source of information out there. No Internet fail here.

+LA Times.com broke the story of Jackson's death, and suffered outages. But much like Wikipedia, it's not the only source of news here. No dice again.

+ AOL Instant Messenger was hit, but do people only communicate over AIM? No. Use your phones people. Again, I'm not buying it.

+ CNN.com saw it's Internet traffic increase five-fold. I don't know if this says more about the importance of Michael Jackson or the poor-traffic CNN gets on a regular basis.

There were also so MJ fan sites that were overwhelmed with traffic for music and video clips, but the story says nothing about YouTube or iTunes suffering from backup.

So maybe, MAYBE a couple of the sites mentioned are kind-of important to the everyday business of the World Wide Web. But the Internet didn't break, CNN. The Internet is a huge expanse of information and digital pathways. Some big sites were swamped with people looking for information on those pathways, but when the Mass Pike or 93 are backed up, we don't say they're "broken." Sites get backed up or crash everyday, but it's because the sites aren't made to deal with high volumes of traffic and not because "the Internet has failed us" as CNN announces in its story. Journalistic sensationalizing of a minor story at its worst.

(Hat Tip Angela Latona)

The Sanford Mess

I actually don't have much to say on the disappearance, reappearance, and sexual exploits of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. But here's two things:

First, the man is a hypocrite - acted all "holier-than-thou" during the Clinton scandal of the late Nineties, and now there's this. He's gonna take his knocks for it. What can you say but "Karma's a bitch"?

Second, this man's private life is his own thing and I feel bad that his dirty laundry is getting strung out for the world. This has nothing - NOTHING - to do with his ability to be an elected servant of the people. If he gets tossed from office in the next election because of this, then that's the will of his constituency. But until that, can we please stop painting this guy like he's anything more than a distressed human being who has made some mistakes?

Alex seems to agree, then some.

The Death of Michael Jackson, 1958 - 2009

I'm not a big Michael Jackson fan, I can't lie. My memories of him consist mainly of accusations of child abuse and then the ridiculous coverage the press gave to it when the rest of the world was falling to pieces. But I also understand there is a Michael Jackson out there whom I've never gotten to see or meet, except in YouTube videos and stories. I think that Michael Jackson I would have liked. And so I mourn the loss of this man, not the Michael Jackson I know.

I've seen very mixed reactions to this news by friends: some seem to be really torn up by this, others losing themselves in his music, other's making jokes, others not really caring at all.

But having read about him today and the path his life has travelled, it certainly was a full one riding the seas of fame and all of the glory/dangers that come with it. I wish that there were a happier ending to tell here, that perhaps he found a sort of solace and comfort in the world he insulated himself in. May his music long inspire the hearts of many generations to come.

TPM has a round-up of the unfortunate event and reflection on his body of work. Andrew and Ta-Nehisi also share some thoughts that are more well put than mine.

UPDATE: Alex adds some memories and reflections here as well.

"That's not logical."

Watching President Obama's presser this afternoon. While addressing the issue of private health insurers being put at a disadvantage if the U.S. government offers a cheaper healthcare plan while wanting to keep a marketplace of competition, Mr. Obama responded to such an accusation that, "That's not logical."

First thought: Spock. Just saying. If he's trying to beat this "Nerd" stereotype, he needs to try harder. Maybe call up Kobe and the Lakers and tell them to bring their party to the White House.

UPDATE: As I write this, ABC WH Correspondent mentions "Spock-like logic" in his follow up. Glad I wasn't the only one thinking it. Obama wonders if he's trying to make a crack at his ears. Touche, Mr. President.

Ruff Talk

Andrew Sullivan points us to an article from Scientific American about talking dogs. Yes. Talking dogs.

Okay, so it's not really talking, but more of imitation. But you still have to admit (as many dog owners will), this makes a lot of sense and tells us a great deal about how the animal and human minds work.

For more proof, David Letterman:

2009 Radio & Television Correspondents' Dinner

President Obama and John Hodgman bring the laughs on Comedy Cen...oh wait, C-SPAN. Enjoy.






(Hat Tip: TPM)

Ayatollah Seuss

The newest comic from Sage Stossel over at The Atlantic is a gasser.

(Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan)

Fearing Iran

Watching FOX News the other afternoon (my favorite pastime if I feel like I need to yell at something), and despite Shep Smith's best efforts I just couldn't get rattled (granted, Shep Smith isn't quite the foghorn Hannity or O'Reilly are, but go with me here). As they went to commercial I became worried - was FOX actually becoming "fair and balanced?" Had my views of the world sufficiently shifted enough since graduating from the liberal brainwashing of BU and back to the bastion of enough for me to accept what FOX was telling me was true?

And then on comes this commercial paid for by United Against Nuclear Iran:



And suddenly all is in balance again.

Ignoring the fact that this ad TOTALLY IGNORES what is presently occurring in Iran and the resistance by it's people to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, these people need to get straight about a couple intertwined things:

They're their own damn country, so respect that. Just because the U.S. is big enough to do things in the international sphere doesn't mean we have to. Sometimes you need to be a hero by not being heroic and sweeping in to fix things. Sometimes you need to let things play themselves out because, well, it's just the right and fair thing to do. Not to say a little soft power nudging isn't fair (case in point, the DoS and Twitter this past week), but the world does not revolve around the United States and how we feel about things. Iran has a right to nuclear energy that could, potentially, be as beneficial to improving relations with them and the Middle East as much as dangerous as the threat of nuclear holocaust at their hands is. This is fear-mongering, and detrimental to good, clear-headed policy-making.

Now, while it can be argued Iran does not have a good track record on pursuing nuclear power for peaceful means, one would think that after the events of the past week which so few Americans and westerners saw coming, we can give the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, we don't really have a clue about what the will and aims of Iran are. Ahmadinejad, sure; Khamenei, sure - but beyond them I don't think the majority of Americans have a real friggin' clue about what the Iranian people want, myself included. They don't hate us nor seem to fear us, so why should we them?

As usual, Jason Jones and The Daily Show comes through to show how ridiculous this view is:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Minarets of Menace
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

Bad News

Chicago Sun-Times (via Ambinder) - journalism legend Walter Cronkite is "gravely ill."

Chambers' Vision

Tall-boy over at BU Hoops has a great new post up about BU Basketball's renewed effort to get fans in the stands, spear-headed by none other than new head coach Pat Chambers himself. Tall-boy outlines what appears to be Chambers' road map, and concludes that there is reason to be optimistic about the future of BU ball.

I want to agree, but I'm gonna hold off on jumping on the bandwagon just yet. I think it's cool Chambers wants to share his experience at BU with the fans and student body via his blog and Twitter, but I don't think that gets you more fans directly. Maybe it makes you seem like a more approachable person, but that just doesn't connect, for me, to getting people at basketball games at which you will have little to no interaction with them. I don't think the warm and fuzzy feelings former coach Dennis Wolfe (or lack there of) gave to fans or students made a big impact on whether or not fans came to games.

The same somewhat extends to him being out there meeting students. He's going to be busy coaching at games, not kissing babies and mingling with the Peeps. And let's not exaggerate who he is here - this isn't Coach K, or Bobby Knight, or Rick Pitino out there, it's Pat Chambers. It's "Cool, I'm meeting the head coach of BU Basketball," not the"Cool, I'm meeting a living legend" that happens when you meet Jack Parker. But it is the right direction.

The only thing I would be wary of from this is the "Tessie" Effect - something losing it's coolness factor from overexposure. "Things are good in moderation" - don't forget that.

As for playing more in Agganis, bless his heart and best of luck to him.

On the other hand, the plan for his players to get out there, meet with, and act like normal college students when they're with (GASP) other college students is a big winner. I think BU's attendance at non-men's hockey/basketball games was up this year because athletes from different teams got to know each other and, in turn, wanted to support each other. This wasn't because they were athletes, but because they're college students and friends. If Chambers want more people to show up, he need to get his boys out there to have some facetime with the people he's trying to bring in.

And then during shootaround and during games, let the boys have fun and interact a little (in a non-Ron Artest way) with the fans they bring in. A little finger pointing at the crowd from John Holland after a big dunk will only fan the embers in the crowd stoked by his play. It connects the fans to the players they are friends with and rooting for, creating a great in-game experience that will bring people back to fill seats, win or lose.

In the end though, it really does come down to one thing for Chambers and BU Basketball right now: winning. Victories bleed ink, and ink is nectar to fans. And considering the gift-wrapped line-up Dennis Wolfe begrudgingly left for Chambers, he needs to take advantage of a veteran line-up while he has it to get him those victories.

Get this team to win. The rest will come.

Video of the Day

Secession Lives! Oh, the fine people of New York...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Long Island Wants to Secede
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

Sound of the Day

(Hat Tip: Max Espo)

I promise the next post will not be about Iran

I’m not entirely sure why I seem to care about this Iranian situation so much, but I cannot get it off my mind. I cannot think of a person I personally know who is Iranian. I’ve never been there, or anywhere remotely near there. I’m a white boy from a small town in a state regarded as the most liberal in a nation that has historically had incredibly poor relations with Iran since before I was born. I shouldn’t care so much.

I keep asking myself, “would I be like those people if given the situation?” And I honestly don’t know what to answer. What would I have done if, back when I was in college, my university was over-run with armed forces black-bagging or killing the people I went to school with? If my vote had been suppressed, would I have taken to the streets and risked my life, or more so my family’s lives, to fight something against which there is such a small chance as to overcome? Would I have the restraint to peacefully protest when those against me were violent? Would I fight back, and not concede to their control over me? I like to imagine I would know how to respond to these questions without having lived them. But I honestly don’t know.

What is being fought for in Iran right now? Even that I’m not entirely sure about, but I know it has to be more than Ahmadinejad or Khamenei or Moussavi. It’s more than votes now. It’s more than just governmental legitimacy or religious authority. Freedom? As broad and infinitely mysteriously as that is, I like to think is a part of it. It’s not the freedom we think about today – our Americanized, wave the flag, get out the vote freedom. This is deeper than that. It’s about making choices that allow you to succeed and fail without being condemned to a given path by something foreign to yourself. It’s about having faith that your government is there for you, or is at least trying for the betterment of your life and that of your family and friends, even if you don’t necessarily agree with it.

There has been talk about how the United States and Obama should respond to what is happening, and I can see both sides. The U.S. does need to remain removed, from a governmental standpoint, for at least two reasons: 1) because U.S. and Western involvement will help Ahmadinejad to secure his position in the radical Muslim world, and 2) because this is “their” battle and not “ours.” I’ve read at least two dozen times that “it isn’t about us; it is about them.” And they’re right – the U.S. has fought this fight before for ourselves. It is their turn now. One can only hope that much less blood will be spilled than when we, or the French, or countless other nations have fought for it.

But I’m having a hard time wanting to stay out of it. I increasingly find myself thinking, wishing that I could help these people. There has been little I’ve come across scouring the web these past few days to help cure whatever this is that is ailing me. Andrew Sullivan turned The Daily Dish green to show solidarity with the Green Resistance in Iran (to the chagrin of some) and promotes changing one’s Facebook and other networking accounts to a green profile picture for a similar effect. I’ve seen a way published to allow Iranians a way to gain Internet access via your IP address (I think, I’m not tech savvy enough to know the what or how about it), something incredibly important to helping them coordinate their efforts. Recommendations to write to your federal government officials encouraging them to reject the Iranian election as legitimate and promote the humanitarian efforts needed to protect the people of Iran from the wrath of those with power in the state. Twitter’s from Iran and the people of the Green Resistance ask for support by wearing green to show solidarity, and ask that we force the MSM to pay attention to and give due justice to what is happening there.

Many of these acts seem small and narcissistic efforts in the big picture, but what else is there to do to help these people? I’ve been at a loss except to write about it and try to raise awareness. They may be on the other side of the world, but there is something about this that grabs me and won’t let me let go. I may be entirely wrong, but right now this is what I think it must be:

There is something instinctual and natural about the Iranian Green Resistance, and it’s hard turn your gaze away from, at least for me (and as easy as it is for me to say, living half a world away). Birth. Death. Love. Laughter. Crying. Smiling. They kind of hit me the same way as this, this rebellion against oppression, this living, organic Leviathan that has arisen to the surprise of many to push back against the shackles that have bonded it since before my birth, as well as that of the many Iranians who know of no different circumstances than that in which they’ve lived their entire lives. Yet are the living blood and sweat of their movement. This is human nature exercising itself in one of its most basic forms. It is a rare glimpse at the beauty of the human condition, and to ignore it is a crime against one’s own humanity.

So do what you can. If you know Iranians or Iranian-Americans, ask them about their family that are caught in the middle of this and see if there is anything you can do to help them. If you believe in God, or Allah, or the Spaghetti Monster, pray to him/her/it that people stay safe through the rough ride that seems to occur when democracy is in action. Educate yourself, follow, and talk about what is happening in Iran to your friends and family. They are not letting this go quietly there, so do not let their story go untold here.

"So you say you want a revolution?" IV

Yes, they do.

Andrew Sullivan continues to show his mettle, going as far as turning his site green to show solidarity with the oppressed of Iran. Go forth, read and share.

Also via Andrew, for those who want to know more about the Iranian Millenials that are forcing their world to change, there's this:

IRAN: A Nation Of Bloggers from ayrakus on Vimeo.

"So you say you want a revolution?" III

Andrew Sullivan has been a man-on-fire these past few days. I can't keep up with him, so just go read The Daily Dish - you can read his incredible coverage of the fraudulent election in Iran, and more importantly, see how the people of Iran are not taking this lying down.

Relatedly, Alex Whalen (and many others) have posted about the failure of most of the Mainstream Media (MSM) to do justice to this historic event. But beyond how dumb the MSM is going to look when this is all over (and how incredible the blogosphere's coverage of this has been), the real trick to this is seeing how the shift in communications technology has made it so the Iranian establishment can't control the diffusion of information about what is going on. I think Alex hits this one on the nose:

Open networks will defeat closed networks every time. The old guard didn't understand how things have changed. The Millennials, both here and in Iran, so completely take open, decentralized communication networks for granted that they use them without even realizing just how revolutionary their simple acts of speech really are. And for my part, I'm happy to have been born into a generation in between, old enough to have played my own small part in building this new information system well before anyone beyond us geeks understood just how important what we were doing really was.

I have no idea where things will go in Iran next. Despite that, I am absolutely certain that the adoption of networks like Facebook and Twitter by young adults in Iran make any long-term bets on the closed system of the Ayatollahs a very, very stupid wager.

Allah O Akbar!

"So you say you want a revolution?" II

Andrew Sullivan has been following what is looking to be an Ahmadinejad anointment by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei rather than a real election. The printing of far more ballots than people in Iran. Under-supplying the number of ballots abroad. Disabling the text messaging network of the country. Refusing to let independent observers into election stations. Smells like a con to me.

Andrew's excellent coverage and analysis can be followed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And here is the smoking gun, looking at the state's official announcements of results over the night:

Yes, this obviously was a "divine assessment". They didn't even attempt to disguise the fraud. Which, to me, tells me they panicked. This graph is a red flag to Iran and the world.

What happens next? I'm not sure, but if the citizens of Iran and supporters of Moussavi were as impassioned with the freedom they tasted during the build up to this sham this may not be over just yet. Nor as quiet as Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would like it either.

(Photo: An Iranian man paints over campaign slogans near the headquarters of presidential candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi in Tehran on June 13, 2009. Moussavi's name is written in green while Ahmadinejad's name is written on top of it in black. By Olivier Laban-Mattei/AFP/Getty Images)

(Big Hat Tip to Andrew Sullivan)

The Dawn of Digital

Slate (via Yglesias) has a great look at the long, winding history of digital television becoming a reality, and the advantages of moving to digital for all of us:

For all these problems, there are a couple of amazing advantages to digital TV, benefits that you hardly hear about in the apocalyptic coverage of the transition. The first one: The switch is going to free up a vast share of public airwaves that can be used for much better things than TV. Last year, the government auctioned off the "spectrum" that TV stations will give up once they stop broadcasting analog signals. Verizon and AT&T won the radio space, though Google, in its first big foray into lobbying, managed to convince the Federal Communications Commission to require that the telecom companies keep the new space "open"—meaning that they can't restrict what software or hardware customers use on the airwaves. As a result of the switch, we'll soon get a much better wireless Internet—wider coverage, faster downloads, and with fewer restrictions. That's much more worthwhile than a snowy local channel showing reruns of Golden Girls.

For those of you not familiar with the coup that Google tried to pull in the bidding for the rights to the opening of the 700-MHz spectrum, definitely read up. Ignoring Bob Cringely's random iPod hate thrown in the middle of the column, his suspicion of what Google was trying to pull off sounds like an interesting alternative reality:

Forget about net neutrality and forget about making nice-nice with broadband ISPs OR phone companies. Google would overnight become the largest U.S. ISP with direct and very high-performance access to its customers, including those using the new Google Phone or any other phone that supports WiFi connections, like the iPhone and many others. Google becomes the biggest and lowest-cost ISP and potentially the biggest and lowest-cost mobile phone company in the bargain.

Loosening the death-grip the telecom industry is trying to entrap people in? Yes please. Sure it didn't happen, but as long as someone is keeping the trenched establishment in check I can sleep a little more soundly at night. If conservatives want to keep us from the "socialist state" some claim we are becoming, they need to help encourage capitalist competition like Google was trying to create.

Video of the Day

Via Alex Whalen - this is pretty freakin' awesome.

The Return of JOB

Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him. - The Book of Job, 13. 15

Good news for Terriers Hoops fans:

After asking for his release and the opportunity to explore other options following the conclusion of the 2008-09 season, America East Rookie of the Year and rising sophomore Jake O'Brien has decided to remain with the Boston University men's basketball team, first-year head coach Patrick Chambers announced Wednesday.

Whitty has a good analysis of what this means from the various faces of BU Basketball.

My two cents: the kid was in a very unique position in which he could be opportunistic. Sure, maybe the morals of it are a little questionable, but in the end JOB decided that this was the best place for him. I agree. I think Coach Chambers does as well. I hope his teammates cut him the slack he deserves and get to the business of making the Dance in March.

BC Sucks. Go Terriers.

(Photo Credit: Matthew West, Boston Herald)

"Bud Light Oversight Authority"

It's gems like this that make "DC Interns" an amazing blog.

"So you say you want a revolution?"

I've been trying to follow the Iranian election coverage via Andrew Sullivan and links the past few days, trying to make sense of what we see coming from Tehran and Iran.

Mir Hussein Moussavi, the former prime minister and chief rival to the establishment in this campaign, has inspired a youth-driven movement with calls for temperance in Iran's international and domestic policies: an openness to working to promote peace and stability in the Middle East, working with the West with an open hand rather than clenched fist, removing the moral police that scour the streets of Iran searching for deviants of Islamic Law, that the economy is not as stable as the establishment would like one to believe. There seems to be a snide side to what they've created and perhaps an element of it being "the cool thing to do," but an undeniable passion for one thing above all else in their voices - a call for the freedom of choice. Where have we heard that before?

And then there is Ahmadinejad - portrayed as an intelligent, wise, yet simple man and patriot who loves his country above all else. His supporters see him a sign of strength against the West and those who oppose Iran. But behind it all seems to be a fear of change, that the status quo and order of things could be shuffled around, and it is this fear that drives Ahmadinejad's followers. Fear of the unknown, that some kind of shift in policy will irreparably weaken Iran and cause it to collapse upon itself. Where have we heard that before?

The comparisons to our recent U.S. presidential election are very much appropriate, as the opposition to Ahmadinejad bears an uncanny resemblance to what those of us supporting Obama looked, sounded, and felt like for over a year. The same can be said of Ahmadinejad and McCain: not to paint McCain supporters as fascist suppressors of democracy and deniers of the Holocaust, but there were times during the 2008 campaign season where the stuff coming out of the Republican base was just as wacky and fear-mongering.

Pre-election poll numbers (pdf) (yeah, who thought those would be coming out of Iran?) give Ahmadinejad a plurality with 34% of the vote, with Moussavi holding 14% and 27% declaring they are unsure of who they will vote for. Of the unsure group, however, over 60% say they are in favor of reform and change in Iran's policies, perhaps making this race much closer than the open poll might suggest. Also, if a candidate does not have a majority of the vote from the open round of voting, a runoff is held a week later between the top two vote-claiming candidates, again creating an opening for Moussavi's numbers to move up.

Granted, Iran's Supreme Leader still runs the show. Granted, Ahmadinejad could win, go Bush's second term on Iran thinking he has a mandate and become even more radical and anti-west and close-minded. There is just as much potential disaster as there is promise in this election.

Far from it for me to make a call on how this thing is gonna turn out, but this I know for sure: there is a fight going on generationally in these elections - the U.S., Lebanon, Iran. The "Old Guard" is having trouble keeping their entrenched views as policy across the world. As much as I hate to say it, maybe Bush was right about something (GASP!) and democracy is on the march. But rather than with soldiers and guns as he promoted, the war is being fought by those who need to fight it - with ordinarily extraordinary people, gasping for the air of freedom and choice. This is democracy in action.

We're back.

Yeah, I've been failing on the blogging front as of late. But I'm back. I swear.

And more excitingly, Alex Whalen is too! If you haven't before, go check him out.

Love (Money) & Basketball

Yglesias breaks down a new report on NBA refs and how they're calling their games. And no, I don't think it's awesome just because he posted the above NBA Jam screenshot of John Stockton and Karl Malone.

From The Oregonian:

An academic study of NBA officiating found little to no evidence that referees favor teams from large media markets in the playoffs, a favorite conspiracy theory of skeptical fans. But the same study found that NBA referees tend to favor home teams, teams trailing in a game and team trailing in a playoff series. [...] The researchers found that each type of favoritism — home, trailing in a game and trailing in a series — resulted in a 5 to 10 percent advantage in “discretionary” turnovers, or ones over which referees have the most influence. The researchers do not attempt to explain what the percentages could mean in actual wins and losses.

Matt believes that it all boils down to money. Home team wins = greater ticket sales = more money. Trailing in a series and coming back = longer series = more money. Simple.

I see a few more of these lines we can pull out. In terms of favoritism of a team trailing in a game (or as Matt calls it, "The NBA Jam Effect):

Trailing in a game and coming back = retained or increased viewership = higher Nielsens = more money.

(This could also be supplemented with "More timeouts = Increased commercial time = more money")

And most importantly, relating to the homer-ism:

Home team wins = refs aren't lynched by 18,000 angry fans = live to see a new dawn = mo' money.

Visions of what's to come?

Oh, what I would give to make this blog.

http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/

(Hat tip - Andrew Sullivan)

Obama in Cairo

I've learned as a rule of thumb not to think that you can have anything more elegant or insightful to say about Barack Hussain Obama's words than the words he says himself. So I'm not going to try, and just use his own words instead:

"We are the change that we seek."

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:



Andrew Sullivan has the whole text.

Know hope.

Hello, Mr. Anderson

This is so awesome and scary at the same time I'm kind of lost as to what to think:



Entertainment Weekly highlights the hidden agenda of our new A.I. overlords:

With inventions such as Natal, we're quickly approaching a future in which humans can partake in a virtual experience that's nearly indistinguishable from the real thing. And then we'll be faced with intriguing decisions: If a skateboarding video game requires the same body movements as actual skateboarding, why not simply go outside and ride a skateboard? If you can have authentic conversations with a virtual person, will you choose to do so -- possibly at the expense of your true relationships?

(Hat tip to Nick DiBella)

What's the real problem with college athletics?

Interesting post by Conor Clarke at The Atlantic about the college sports and their tax exempt status, as is being discussed by the Senate Finance committee. Clarke proposes that D-I sports schools should have their tax exemption revoked as an educational institutions because:

Colleges and Universities get tax exempt status because they are thought to be
providing a valuable educational service. And they probably are. But many of
those universities are operating athletic programs that are giant, commercial
cash cows. The Congressional Budget Office (pdf) says that between 60 and 80 percent of Division IA athletic department activity can be described as commercial. And while pulling in dollars hand over fist might have some educational value, I doubt it's what Congress had in mind.

So here's the trick: looking at another CBO report from 2003 by Bob Litan, Jonathan Orszag, and head of the OMB Peter Orszag, only 101 of 164 NCAA D-I schools turn a profit. Unfortunately, the report doesn't name the schools it looked at, but considering that there are at least 342 NCAA D-I schools I'm going to guess their investigation leaned heavy toward the Ohio State's, Duke's, and Florida's of the NCAA over the Stony Brook's, Quinnipiac's, and the Univerisity of Missouri - Kansas City's of the D-I world. And removing this tax exemption from these smaller institutions is very much unfair, both academically and athletically.

There is something wrong today with D-I college athletics and the institutions that sponsor them on the upper end of the financial echelon. The commercial prospects and marketability of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish logo is somewhere in the vicinity, I would imagine, of the Yankees' intertwined "NY" logo and Michael Jordan's Nike insignia. And some of these institutions cash in on their athletic prowess without doing justice to the athletes that wear their uniforms - sacrificing the human potential and failing to do to these young adults what their institutions primary purpose is: to teach.

The NCAA runs commercials during all of their televised events - most of these kids are going to "go pro" in something other than their sport and that's what their life will reflect, not necessarily the four or so years spent playing for College X. This is not true in all cases though- many of this radical fringe D-I schools shuttle these kids through their academic experience to let them flounder in obscurity after that NBA contract dissolves or NFL prospect flops. These schools look only at the finance books, not the human collateral they are creating in the process.

This is what the Federal government should be examining, instead of trying to scrounge around the barrel for money to take from the many D-I NCAA institutions that produce little-to-no profit from their athletic departments yet consistently high graduation rates and, more importantly, the real future leaders, the movers and shakers of the world. Kobe isn't going to fix the economy; LeBron isn't going cure HIV. Congress needs to help the educational institutions that are doing their job well, rather than condemning the entirety of D-I schools.

I would suggest targeted evaluation by the Senate and federal government. Those institutions that are pulling a big profit yet are failing to graduate and properly educate the vast majority of student-athletes from their biggest revenue producing sports (football and basketball, for the most part), look into them and punish them by repealing their tax exempt status if found of wrongdoing. They're the bad guys here. But don't hurt the schools who are doing a good job of developing strong, educated young adults from their athletes by cutting out a source of revenue to help in that process.

Moving on "Up"

My good friend Dan Withrow over at The Eighth Samurai has finally posted his movie review of Disney and Pixar's newest instant classic - Up. The money quote:

Where Up falters is...nowhere. I have seen the film twice already and both times I left completely satisfied. The animation is some of their best and the story is tight and perfect. It stays the course and carries you the entire way. It's beautiful, poetic, and uplifting. Expect to be dazzled and wowed by this one.

I'm entirely in agreement. I went into the theater after listening to my brother endlessly hype Up all week prior to its release, and despite that I still was blown away.

For ye of little faith - the trailer:

Video of the Day

Gingrich on National Security

From Democracy in America a few days ago:

DIA: You've said that under the Obama administration the nation is under greater risk of being attacked than we were under George Bush. How has Mr Obama made us less safe and how can we judge a counterfactual like that?

Mr. Gingrich: First, we do know that for over seven years the Bush policy of aggressive national security kept us safe and blocked a number of planned attacks. Second, we are watching the Obama administration return to the criminal-justice attitudes that failed to keep us safe in the Clinton years. Despite the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing of American servicemen, the two east African embassy bombings, and the bombing of the USS Cole, the Clinton administration insisted on treating terrorists within a criminal-justice framework. The Obama team is even more pro-terrorist-rights and anti-national security than the Clinton team was.

There a few issues I have to take with Mr. Gingrich's argument here. First, I wouldn't say that "the Bush policy of aggressive national security" is what kept America safe under the previous administration, but rather two wars "against" the enemies that attacked the U.S. It's really easy to claim that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT, or torture for those of us willing to call a spade a spade), indefinite detention and abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram, and suspension of some civil liberties within the U.S. are what kept America safe for the past eight years. These are the products and legacy of Bush's "aggressive national security."

However, it's just as easy to claim that multiple wars against Islamic terrorism moved far from U.S. soil and diverted the resources and time of fleeing and/or scattered jihadist accomplished that same goal. Maybe Mr. Gingrich is including the wars as part of Bush's national security paradigm, but either way it does not necessarily imply the lack of a foreign terror attack within the U.S. since 2001. The former Speaker honestly can't say, even with any amount of data he can procure from his think-tanks without considerable doubt. Neither can I, definitively - there are just too many variables.

My second issue is his condemnation of the Clinton administration's use of a criminal justice framework in order to prosecute foreign terrorists, and the Obama administration's return to such a policy. Mr. Gingrich claims that the terror attacks at home and abroad that occurred throughout the Clinton administration are an indication of the failure of applying criminal justice attitudes towards terrorists, and that Obama has made us less safe by returning us to this policy.

Obviously Mr. Gingrich again must exclude the casualties of two wars of Islamic terrorism initiated under the Bush administration and from the attacks of September 11th when comparing what occurred on Clinton's and Bush's respective terms at the helm of state. Obviously the terror attacks in Spain, Britain, and throughout Africa, Europe, and the Middle East have nothing to do with Bush's "aggressive national security" regime, nor the deaths and casualties from them. Then yeah, Newt's right.

This whole discussion brings a chart from a few months back to mind that pretty easily wraps this all up. From CAPAF (via Yglesias):

"Allow me to re-introduce myself. My name is..."

I don't want to bore people with talk about who I am and what I think I have to offer to satisfy the ego it takes to want to blog about the world they live in. Hopefully you all will get an idea of who I am and my interests from what gets thrown around here on Cheshire Prospects (CP for short from here on out). So we'll keep this intro short.

I'm not entirely sure where this blog is going to go and what direction it might take in terms of what I'll be throwing out to the world. Politics, current events, sports, music, movies, games - all seem like good starting points as their topics I'm interested in and have a thing or two I'd like to say about.

As I swing through the intertube jungle daily, I'll try to throw stuff up that I think is worth a look by anyone who comes across CP, from posts by other bloggers who are making interesting points about something to sharing stupid videos (obviously what the Internet is truly used for). Maybe if I'm lucky, we'll get a little following so we can have some sweet bloggy discussion and make things really interesting.

So to begin with, I'd like to share this article by Andrew Sullivan entitled "Why I Blog." I think it sums things up pretty nicely and served as on of the inspirations for creating CP. Enjoy.

A few words to open with...

From Lewis Carroll's classic, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland:

"Cheshire Puss," she began, rather timidly, as she did not at all know whether it would like the name: however, it only grinned a little wider. "Come, it's pleased so far," thought Alice, and she went on. "Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"I don't much care where--" said Alice.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.
"--so long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation.
"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

Welcome to my blog, Cheshire Prospects. I'm sure this will be quite an adventure. If only we walk long enough.

More to come soon.