Lincolnite

I may not be reading Senator Ben Nelson's comments correctly, but doesn't it sound like he pretty much agrees with President Bush's Iraq strategy (err, "strategy")?

The Bush administration needs to establish "measurable goals and standards" that guide gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops as Iraq increases its own military capability, Ben Nelson says. "We can’t just pull up stakes and leave," the Democratic senator said in a Lincoln interview. "We shouldn't cut and run," he said. "But Iraq has to win the war."

Odd that our Democratic senator echoes our Republican president's remarks, while our Republican senator sounds more like a Democrat on this issue.

The Journal Star reports that Nebraska is in the top half of states in terms of households with internet access. We sit at 23rd among the states. What really caught my eye was the statistic that only 55 percent of Nebraska households have internet access. 55 percent. I can't believe nearly one-half of Nebraska's households don't have internet access. Clearly I have been a spoiled, spoiled man.

If you are reading this post, you've arrived at Lincolnite's new server. Welcome! I'll be working on technical matters for the rest of the weekend to make sure nothing was lost during the server transition. If you think something got goofed up during the move, I'd really appreciate if you would drop me a note in the comments. Thanks!

Today marks the three thousand two hundred eighty seventh day The Missus and I have been a couple. (That's 9 years to those of you who don't feel like dividing by 365.) Our first date was lunch at the Village Inn on Van Dorn Street. We had just finished marching in a very chilly Star City Holiday Parade with the LSE marching band. (Take THAT you ninnies!) Like a typical boy, I was way too nervous at the time to remember much of anything about the date. The Missus, on the other hand, like a typical woman, recalls every tiny detail: what we wore, what we ate, and so on. It was a mere one month later that we first held hands. I know, I know, we were depraved. Holding hands after only one month? Horrors! Surely we shall wind up in heck. The Missus and I are going to mark the start of our tenth year together with a quiet dinner at The Oven, probably followed by dessert at Ivanna Cone. Feel free to drop in at either place and pay our bill for us. (Kidding!)

G'day, all! Sorry I've not been posting very often lately. I've been programming some backend code for the soon-to-be-opened Events section, and whatever spare time I've been left with has been consumed by shopping for a new host for this website. I've been dying to comment on a few happenings around Lincoln, though, so here are some quick thoughts, in no particular order:

• I'm still disappointed that the School Board wants to try to rush a bond issue for a February special election. I'm very concerned about the very real possibility of its failure.
• Why are certain figures in city government against a new McDonald's and gas station/convenience store on Capital Parkway, across from Lincoln High? Two words: elitist snobbery.
• Isn't it funny how Lincolnites claim to want economic development Downtown, and yet so many Lincolnites are against the sale and renovation of the K Street power plant and/or the McDonald's and gas station I mentioned above? Curious. Very curious.
• Mayor Seng attends ribbon cuttings and banquets and light turnings-on (like the Friday lighting of Sunken Gardens). Does she actually do any, y'know, mayor-y things? She is more of a figurehead than a leader. Methinks we should change her title to Queen Seng.
• Lincoln ranks 9th out of 10 regional cities in terms of restaurants per capita. That seems so hard to believe, considering how many restaurants have opened in the past ten years. Then again, ten years ago we were in pretty sorry shape, restaurant-wise. Remember how giddy Lincolnites were when Applebee's came to town? I may curse Applebee's a lot, but I'll give them credit where credit is due: their Old Cheney location opened the gates to the restaurant variety Lincoln has today.

The Missus and I will be among the thousands at the Qwest Center cheering on the Husker volleyball team this weekend. Do you have your tickets?

I love being in a good mood. I like being that guy who doesn't get grumpy, the guy you can count on for a humorous quip at just the right time. Getting mad or annoyed or frustrated just isn't any fun. I try to keep a rosy outlook as much as possible. But the day has barely started and I'm already annoyed. First, it's freezing in here. I can't feel my toes. Second, I've already received two phone calls from a very rude guy who wouldn't be nearly so frustrated if he would just RTFM. I'll take responsibility if I screw up, but if you're rude to me because you're too stupid or stubborn to read the instructions that I worked so hard to prepare for you, I will quickly take to disliking you. I just know he's going to go whining to my boss. That's not a problem for me because I know my boss is with me on this issue. But that means my boss will have to deal with this guy, thus putting a damper on his Monday morning. I'm on the lookout for number three, since these things tend to come in trios. I suppose the good news is that once number three hits I'll be done, because these things never come in fours or fives. Uhh, right? I think I can actually see my breath...

Ugh. Lincolnite is back, after an unplanned -- and very, very unwelcome -- 16 hour outage. The site was suspended by my host ostensibly because some sort of "formmail" script or other CGI mail script had been compromised. That's complete crap, for two reasons: 1) I don't run those kinds of scripts; and 2) a check of the server logs proves that no such scripts were ever accessed, least of all at the time the site went down. The site was being spammed at the time it went down, but the "attack" was in the form of repeated access by a single rogue spambot. I've blocked that bot for now, but we'll see how long that lasts. Spammers may be jackasses, but they aren't stupid. I've been reasonably happy with my host for over a year now, so this is very disconcerting. Not only did they shut down my site, they gave me a baloney excuse for it being shut down, and the support staff's responses to my requests for information had a distinct "cut and paste" feel to them. Even when I got them to put the site back online all I had to say was "I deleted the scripts you requested" -- a lie, since no such scripts existed in the first place -- and their response was, in short "We're glad we could help!" Uhh, whatever. I can't be too angry, since I'm not exactly paying big bucks to have this site hosted. If I really want Lincolnite to be a robust site, I really need to move to a better host. I already have one in mind, but boy, I sure don't want to go through all the hassle of moving. Talk about a pain! Anyway, my apologies for the unplanned outage. Let's hope it doesn't happen again.

How come nothing like this ever happened while I was at Southeast? Students cited for having sex at Lincoln high school

A quick question: Why is a gravel road leading to Cordova a project that deserves federal funding? Oughtn't it be a state, county, or local matter? Granted, it's not a project on the scale of Ted Stevens' infamous bridge to nowhere. But pork is pork.

Where's the best place in town to get good meatloaf? Bob's Gridiron Grill had pretty decent meatloaf when it first opened, but the quality dropped over time, and Bob's is closed now anyway. Eighth Street Iron Works had awesome meatloaf, but it's gone, too. That leaves me with just Granite City and my mom's kitchen on my list of places to get a decent meatloaf. Of any place in town I would bet that Stauffer's might have good meatloaf, but I haven't been there yet, so I can't say for sure. Any suggestions?

I've posted a piece on term limits over in the Articles section.

Mr. T sent along a link to an article from USA Today that describes how the FCC, in a dramatic reversal, now wants satellite and cable operators to let consumers choose their channels. So-called "a la carte" subscription methods would give the consumer more power over their channel lineup. I like the idea of giving consumers more choice, but I strongly dislike the idea that we might get there "thanks" to FCC meddling. The FCC is taking its latest stand for a single reason: the FCC is run by prudish, uptight bureaucrats who want to force their vision of morality upon all Americans. OK, that's a little harsh, but only a little. This move is part of the FCC's post-Super Bowl boob effort to "clean up" television and radio entertainment. That's not inherently an unworthy goal, but the FCC's methods to date have tended toward government censorship and the stifling of free expression. Their desired ends, though reasonable enough, are being pursued with unacceptable -- and likely unconstitutional -- means. What I find most amusing about the FCC's latest push in favor of "consumer rights" (a wolf in sheep's clothing if I've ever seen one) is that it is in reaction to the failure of the FCC's own policies and practices. The FCC has long supported current "block" channel packages. Likewise, the FCC has for years pushed for program ratings and filtering technology that ostensibly allows parents to block certain programs or channels. The infamous V-Chip, for example, required in all televisions since 1996, has been a complete failure. Few critics were surprised. Solutions to the problem -- and identifying the presence of a problem in the first place -- should be determined by the marketplace, not by government bureaucrats trying to score political points. Why is it that government's response to failed meddling is never to apologize and back away, but rather always to come up with a "new and improved" way to regulate, intervene, and interfere? Even if the FCC's new stance is a good one, their involvement is far more likely to make the television experience worse for the consumer than better. One of the potential side effects of a la carte channel menus is that less popular, "minor" channels will no longer be affordable for cable and satellite companies to carry. The end result is fewer channels, a heavier reliance on "mainstream" channels, and less variety and fewer consumer choices -- the exact opposite of the stated goal of a la carte proposals. The FCC will eventually realize that, and they will have a solution: more regulation. They will tell cable companies to add surcharges to customers' bills to support the minor channels, or maybe the FCC will require customers to add one minor channel for every X number of mainstream channels he picks from the menu. In any event, the consumer is stuck with fewer choices, higher costs, or both. In short, the notion of a la carte channel selection is compelling, but such a system should be driven by the market, not by the government. If it were such a great idea, one of the major cable or satelite providers would already be offering it, and the others would quickly follow. Consumers have toyed with the idea for a long time, and cable and satellite providers are very aware of it. The fact it is not yet available is not a sign of marketplace failure, but of success. I have no doubt that a la carte menus and 100% on-demand pay-per-view options are in our future. But let's let the people who know best -- the consumers and the providers -- determine when the market is ready to support those systems in a way that maximizes consumer choice and minimizes costs.

Our case worker dropped by the house last night for our home visit. The visit was part interview, part information session, and part real estate appraisal. The interview portion was easy enough. She didn't really ask any questions we weren't prepared for. In fact, many of her questions were similar to items we had responded to on the questionnaires that we each completed. There were a couple tricky questions, though. One that caught us off-guard was "What are the biggest challenges in your marriage right now?" It's not that we don't have our ups and downs -- every relationship has them -- but honestly, the biggest challenge we could come up with was deciding where to go to dinner each Date Night. I think part of the reason we had such a difficult time identifying any major challenges is that The Missus and I are very much in tune with each other right now, and it's mostly because of the adoption process. Not only has this process forced us to think and talk about a whole host of topics (and come to some sort of a consensus on many of them), we're also on a "we're going to be parents!" high. After we've had a few sleepless nights with a screaming baby I'm sure we'll have identified a few challenges in our marriage. Our case worker also updated us on what comes next. In short, after completing just a little more paperwork, we will officially be approved to begin the "Pick me! Pick me!" process. It may seem strange to think of it that way, but in the open adoption process that's not too far from how it actually works. Generally speaking, a placement with a boy happens within around five months, while girls take about eleven months. That's not to say that five months from today we'll have in our arms a baby boy, or eleven months from today we'll be holding a baby girl. Those are just averages. There are far too many variables to consider to say that we'll have a child in our home by X date. Likewise, there are too many variables involved to say at this point whether we will adopt a boy or a girl (we have not expressed a preference). The "real estate appraisal" actually was pretty basic. Our case worker noted the number and type of rooms in the house, number of smoke detectors, size of the yard, and other pieces of information that might be relevant to the appropriateness of our house for a child. We're getting closer. Hopefully before the end of the year we'll be able to say that we are "expecting". The major difference will be, of course, that we won't have any idea when our due date might be.

I'm awfully disappointed in Deena Winter after reading her article on the City Council's discussion of a new Wal-Mart near 84th and Adams. This paragraph is what bothers me:

A series of Wal-Mart opponents testified against allowing another Wal-Mart into Lincoln, going through a litany of beefs about the world's largest company and its well-publicized business practices: the number of its employees on government assistance and health care programs and the effect the company has on independent businesses and wages.

In that paragraph Ms. Winter has managed to imply negative things about Wal-Mart's so-called "well-publicized business practices" without actually stating them. It's a classic case of allowing the reader's imagination to conjure up images that are worse than reality. She doesn't state "the number of [Wal-Mart's] employees on government assistance and health care programs" (Is it 1%? 50%? 100%?), nor does she cite "the effect the company has on independent businesses and wages". It is, quite simply, lazy and biased. In all fairness to Ms. Winter, it's not like she was writing a story about the virtues and vices of Wal-Mart. The article was about a City Council meeting, and she reported what she heard. It's not her fault the public's comments were not accompanied by silly things like "facts" and "data". Still, a little context would have been nice. Many people take these sorts of things at face value, and Ms. Winter needs to recognize that. The activist public feeds off of these sorts of articles because they fuel existing biases with pseudo-data, while the passive public only remembers the catchy baseless claims (Wal-Mart "will create excessive traffic, crime, litter and light and noise pollution"), pleas to emotion, and non sequiturs ("A man ... said he has seen the impact Wal-Mart has had on floral shops, optical stores, paint stores, garden centers, grocery stores, shoe stores and clothing stores in small towns. He said the owners and employees of those stores contributed to their towns for years, until Wal-Mart came to town"). The discussion in this situation ought to focus on only one thing: is a regional shopping center, including a large discount retailer, appropriate for the intersection of 84th and Adams? That, in and of itself, is an interesting question, but it is one that has more or less already been answered in the affirmative. The current discussion is rooted not in a rational analysis of the situation, but an emotional, ideological, and elitist drive to stifle consumer choice in favor of inconvenience and higher costs. In other words, it's a discussion best held around the water cooler, on blogs like this, and on the opinion page, not in a local news story. [Note: Do you hate Wal-Mart, and the proposed 84th & Adams Wal-Mart in particular? Write up a solid, well reasoned article and I'll post it in the Opinion section. Send it to me at MrWilson at Lincolnite dot com.]