Lincolnite

I've enjoyed reading Radley Balko for a while now. In his latest column for Fox News, he makes some predictions for freedom in 2006 (with a twist).

The Huskers are ranked 24th in both the AP and USA Today polls. It was a bumpy season at times, but the return to the rankings for the first time since 2003 is well deserved. Congratulations, Huskers! Oh, and congrats to the Texas Longhorns on their National Championship. Gig 'em, Horns! (Or something like that.)

USA Today has published a nice summary of basic rules to live by when shooting and publishing photos in the digital age. My only major quibble is with this:

You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.

That last sentence is a little bothersome, and not entirely true. If your presence on the property is predicated on the condition that you not take photographs, you obviuosly don't have permission to shoot at will. The fact that you make it through the front door does not automatically mean that you can do whatever you want while you're there. Private property owners most certainly can grant access to their property based on whatever restrictions they want to set. That's why photography can be banned at concerts, shows, exhibitions, and similar events. The author should have made that more clear. That being said, the general theme of the article is solid, and it's worth reading for bloggers.

A co-worker had the misfortune of attending the Husker men's basketball game last night. He described the debacle as "Keystone Cops on ice". Twice, he said, the crowd actually laughed out loud at the ludicrous scene unfolding before them. I find it difficult to believe that Barry Collier will survive the season. In fact, it's becoming more and more difficult to think that he'll even be around through the end of the Big 12 schedule.

They raised the hopes of millions based on a rumor in the name of sensationalism and ratings. Can the media actually be trusted to report the facts any more? Could they ever be trusted?

What's this buzz I'm hearing about Wal-Mart thinking about building a distribution center somewhere in or near Lincoln? I wonder if this is a rumor generated by folks infuriated by Seng's antics regarding the proposed Wal-Mart at 84th and Adams in order to try to sway public opinion in Wal-Mart's favor. Or perhaps Wal-Mart itself started the rumor. Or maybe -- just maybe -- the rumor has a grain of truth to it. If true, it would be great news for Lincoln. A Wal-Mart distribution center would mean probably a couple hundred jobs directly related to the facility, plus potentially hundreds more in related industries, such as trucking. If you were Wal-Mart, where would you put such a facility? Airpark? West O? North 70th Street? Or, gulp, Waverly?

I am pleased to see that the Unicameral's term limits-induced openings are driving record interest in running for state senator. I'm still very displeased with why those openings exist, but at least we're not facing a vacuum. Well, a vacuum of participation, anyway. A vacuum of experience and dedication is still a certainty. It's an incredible relief to see that the article notes that many (most?) of the candidates aren't just local goofballs jumping on the opportunity to see their name on the ballot merely because the incumbent is barred from running. The last thing Nebraska needs is a California-style election. The candidates cited in the article actually have political experience. That doesn't automatically make them good candidates, but it increases the likelihood that they are at least semi-competent. Still, competency has never been the issue for me in my post-term limits fallout complaints. There are literally thousands of individuals around the state who are competent enough to be excellent state senators. But the set of those individuals who are not only competent but also willing to serve is much smaller. And even then, the majority of that set lacks the practical experience to serve effectively in a body as complex as the Unicameral. I foresee two possible outcomes from that lack of experience. The first is a legislative logjam. A painfully slow legislative process driven by inexperience-induced incompetence. I hope for this outcome. Less legislative action is better. It means less interference, less regulation, less spending, and more freedom. Slow, messy, ugly legislative processes are good. The other possible outcome is a legislative process so slick and unencumbered that the body passes laws left and right. I fear this outcome not only for its implications for freedom, financial responsibility, and complexity of the state's laws, but also for its implications for the Unicameral itself. A Unicameral legislature is very susceptible to becoming a runaway process. A Unicameral is bound only by itself and the rules it sets for itself. Very, very few checks exist on the Unicameral. In many ways we are lucky the system has worked as well as it has. I wonder what effect institutionalized inexperience will have on the sustainability of the Unicameral?

I've been saying that the Events section would go live "soon" for quite a while now. Obviously "soon" has come and gone several times. Not five minutes ago I finally had a breakthrough with some of the scripting I've been working on. I can finally move forward on making the Events section look pretty (or something approximating pretty), and then I'll be able to open it up. There won't be many, if any, events pre-entered, but that'll change as I get Lincolnite closer to being finished. For now there will at least be a form for Lincolnite.com members to enter events, so if you want to promote yourself, your business, or your organization, you'll be able to do so. I'm glad to finally be close to getting the Events section checked off my to-do list. Next up is the Classifieds section. That one'll keep me occupied for a while, for sure.

The Missus and I stopped by Southpointe Cinema last night to check out King Kong, Peter Jackson's latest three-hour epic. I went in open-minded, but skeptical. I left thinking "I have to own that movie". First, my skepticism. I'm wary of big-budget special effects flicks. Very few of them are done well enough to satisfy my picky eye. I have a hard time allowing myself to believe that computer-generated effects are real. My analytical brain goes into anal-retentive overdrive. My eye catches every little glitch, every green screen flaw, every shortcoming in the rendering software. I don't want to see movies that way, but I do. It's just how I'm wired. Thus, for me to really enjoy a special effects flick the director has to distract me so that I miss the flaws. Jurassic Park was the last movie to really succeed at distracting me. Until now. Let me just come right out and say it: King Kong -- the digital ape, that is -- is incredible. Phenomenal. Outstanding. Peter Jackson clearly focused a ton of his team's creative energy on making Kong as close to perfect as modern technology can achieve. He succeeded. In fact, part of what makes Kong so perfect is the fact that Kong isn't perfect -- he is old, scarred, and dirty. And Kong has a personality. He's a big ol' brute that has never had a friend, until Ann Darrow comes along. Peter Jackson makes all of that very believable. Not all of the special effects are as believable as Kong, but by the time those flaws showed up, I didn't care any more. Kong is the effect that matters. Still, the stampeding Apatasaurus scene had a definite green screen feel to it. The dinosaurs themselves were well done, and their movements were impressively rendered, but the actors and the digital effects just didn't go together very well. The scene was thrown in for its action component, but I could have done without it (or with less of it). One of the complaints I've heard and read about King Kong is that it is a story of woman-animal love in the, erm, sexual way. That is not true. There are two concurrent love stories in the movie, one among humans, one between a woman and an ape. But the latter is not a sexual love story. It's a story about the love between friends, one of whom happens to be an ape. Many stories have been told of similar relationships between humans and dogs, horses, and other animals. This story just happens to feature a 25-foot gorilla. Peter Jackson wisely makes very clear that Ann Darrow loves the ape, but is in love with a man, in one of the final scenes. King Kong isn't a flawless movie. There are some loose ends left unresolved and some hiccups here and there. But overall it is a solid story told with solid acting among solid special effects, locations, and music. You can hardly ask for anything more than that.

Whew! These past few days really flew by. I hope everybody had a jolly good Christmas, or a happy December 25th, if you're not the Christmas type. My niece had her second Christmas, but her first Christmas where she had any idea what was going on. She was a hoot. Christmas is much more fun with kids and toys around. And dogs. There must also be dogs. Daisy loved helping to shred wrapping paper and boxes. We don't let her do that sort of thing very often, so when she gets the chance, she goes to town. I received some nice gifts from the family. Clothes dominated this year. My wardrobe hardly gets updated except at Christmas and on my birthday, so if Santa's tailors don't come to my rescue, my closet can start to look pretty sad. The only thing I didn't receive that I had hoped for was a subscription to Reason Magazine. I think the 'L' word scared off any potential givers of that particular gift. No biggie; I'll just pay my own way. I get this whole week off work, so I'm putting in some hours on Lincolnite. I've already gotten a ton of work done, and I'm close to revealing some of it. An events calendar is my big project right now, but I'm also working on a classified ads section, data caching to improve the site's performance, and other fun stuff. During my coding I've run across a couple bugs in Expression Engine 1.4, but I'm finally confident enough about my PHP skills that I've been able to either work around the bugs or to help the EE developers squash them. EE's development team is awesome; they respond quickly and forcefully to squash any bugs that pop up. I'm pretty sure they don't sleep, because I've received support at all hours. Today's plan is pretty simple: walk the dog (check), order a RAM upgrade for this computer (check), hang out with The Missus (check), head to Oso for lunch and then come back here for an afternoon of PHP coding. In my book that's a pert-near perfect day around the house.

The Lincoln Journal Star has incorrectly reported that StarTran buses will run on Monday, December 26. That is incorrect. I was advised this morning by my driver that StarTran is closed on Monday. Adjust your travel plans accordingly. That being said, there is some confusion on the matter. My driver said she had planned to go to work on Monday until she was told just this morning that the buses would not run, and that the drivers should tell that to their passengers. Apparently even the drivers didn't know they won't be working that day. My advice: assume the buses won't run. I'll update this post if the opposite turns out to be true. [Update: Michael Weston, StarTran Operations Superintendent, has confirmed to me via e-mail that the buses will not run on Monday, December 26, or Monday, January 2.]

The Missus and I ventured up to Omaha today to meet with our adoption agency. Now we need to put together a portfolio. In essence, the portfolio is our way of saying "Ooh! Ooh! Pick us! Pick us!" to the birth mothers our portfolio is shown to. The open adoption process is so strange. It's basically a bizarre marketplace trafficking in...people. At this stage The Missus and I are both a product and a buyer. The Missus and I "shopped" for a good adoption agency; now we have to market ourselves to birth mothers "shopping" for parents for their children; and The Missus and I will soon "shop" for the "dealer" -- err, mother -- who can provide us with a quality "product" -- err, child. It kind of makes me feel all oogie if I think about it too much, so I don't. I'm excited to put our portfolio together, but I'm also nervous. What if we don't present ourselves well? What colors should we use? Should we make it super fancy, or will that alienate the mothers? How should we bind it? Which pieces of our family story should we include, and which should we leave out? What if nobody likes us? You know what's really strange? The Missus and I are as little as a few short months away from welcoming to our home a new member of the family. I'm going to be a dad to a real live person, not just to this four-legged hairy thing staring at me pitifully and wondering why I won't throw the ball she has set neatly by my chair. My niece will have a cousin, my parents another grandchild. OK OK, enough daydreaming. I need to get to work on this portfolio.

I'm glad to hear that nobody was severely injured in Tuesday's crash between a small bus and a car near Zeman Elementary. The accident occurred at 52nd and Spruce Streets. The bus was traveling north on 52nd Street, while the car was traveling west on Spruce. The last paragraph of the print version of the story (not included in the online version) has me confused:

Police issued no citations Tuesday. Because the intersection is open it's hard to determine who is at fault, [Lincoln Police Captain David] Beggs said.

On the contrary, it's quite easy to determine who is at fault. Lincoln's traffic rules require drivers to yield to traffic coming from their right, barring the presence of traffic signals or signs indicating otherwise.

Right of way is determined by the "right hand rule" at low volume intersections which do not have a stop or yield sign. In these situations drivers are to approach intersections with caution and yield the right of way to the driver on their right.

In this crash, then, the bus driver was clearly at fault. He failed to yield to a vehicle on his right at an intersection with no signs or signals. Where is the ambiguity? The "yield to the right" rule, common throughout the United States, exists precisely to address this sort of situation. If it does not apply to this scenario -- or worse, if it applies but is not enforced, as seems to be the case here -- then what good is the rule? Granted, the intersection of 52nd and Spruce can be a bit deceptive. 52nd Street north of La Salle Street "feels" like it should have the right of way. Drivers on 52nd Street tend to think they have the right of way because that part of the street is a major entrance and exit point from the neighborhood, and the street is wider and more open than many of the other residential streets in the neighborhood. But that faulty perception is no excuse when it leads to an accident. Assuming the Journal Star is reporting all of the facts of the incident, the car unambiguously had the right of way, and the bus driver is unambiguously at fault, by virtue of the "yield to the right" rule. Captain Beggs seems to be incorrect. It is quite simple to determine fault in this case. The bus driver should be ticketed.

I'm not a huge Chuck Hagel fan by any means, but I applaud those who deserve applause. Chuck Hagel deserves applause for standing firm against the Patriot Act renewal on the grounds that "more civil liberties safeguards need to be added to the proposed renewal of the Patriot Act." Whether he's staking this position out of genuine concern about the Act or in a shameless ploy to gain favor from voters is still unclear.