Procrastination Nation

Things that Robert is thinking about that keep him from accomplishing anything.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Counter by Digits.Com

Sunday, October 31, 2004
 
Weird Dream
I almost forgot to mention that I dreamed I was checking into a hotel in some big city (maybe my upcoming Atlanta trip?) and John Kerry was there greeting people getting on the elevators. He was dressed kind of dissheveled, looked like he'd been up campaigning for a long damn time with his coat off, shirt a little wrinkled and untucked. I shook hands with him and said something encouraging, and he asked where are you from, and I said Nashville...and it just totally threw him. It was like he didn't know how to respond or make small talk about my being from Nashville. I hope that's not enough to keep him from winning, but I wonder if that will spell his doom Tue. Like I've said before, his losing may spare him a shitload of grief because, seriously, who really wants to take responsibility for cleaning up this mess?


 
61
Well, I finally crossed the magical 60 lb. barrier yesterday. Down to 192.2 from 253+. Again, it's probably measurement error after exercising yesterday since I had crossed back under this a.m., but we take enjoyment even in flukes, especially when they're headed in the right direction. Even my size 34 pants are starting to feel loose.

If I get under 190, I will officially be at my skinniest (or more precisely lightest) since Aug. 1992, perhaps Feb. 1992 since I started creeping up after my college swimming career, such as it was, ended.


Thursday, October 28, 2004
 
Race is Tightening...
No, not the presidential race. The race for Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year. If I were handicapping, Pat Tillman would be the leading candidate, and I'd say Curt Schilling has overtaken Lance Armstrong for 2nd place. Michael Phelps is probably 4th, maybe 3rd. If it were my vote, I'd go Schilling, Phelps, Tillman, Armstrong. I can't seem to find any actual odds on the Internet.

One note on Phelps: I didn't realize this, but apparently he was a volunteer coach at Loyola College (Md.), my alma mater, for the '03-'04 season. But, I believe he's off to Ann Arbor this year.


Monday, October 25, 2004
 
Count Along with Bono
Perhaps Bono spent too much time visiting the Bush administration over African debt relief. You've no doubt seen the iTunes ads featuring U2's newest single, Vertigo. Listen to Bono's countdown though: "Uno, dos, tres, catorce!" For the Spanish-impaired, that's: "1, 2, 3, 14!" Perhaps there's a MENSA puzzle that rationalizes this series.


 
Now I Get It
In the past week the Bush administration's Iraq/War on Terror has made sense to me. It took the unique phrasing of W's speeches--e.g., "Where does the senator think [al-Zarqawi]'d be? Opening a small business?"--for me to finally get it.

By attacking Iraq, the administration is fusing anti-American and pro-Islamic sentiment in such a way as to draw Al-Qaeda to into Iraq in order to divert Al-Qaeda's resources from planning against the United States. It doesn't matter whether Al-Qaeda ever had connections with Iraq, the U.S. was going to force Al-Qaeda to make a strategic decision: to focus solely on attacking the U.S. in the U.S., or attack American forces in the Middle East to thwart a democratic Iraqi regime. If they focus solely on the U.S., other Islamic interests in the Middle East suffer, including the disrespect of having the infidels on their holy lands; if they defend Iraq, then they divert resources from direct attacks on the U.S.

At one level, this is a pretty clever plan. Essentially, the U.S. uses its military as a decoy, drawing fire from the enemy so that everyone else back home can go along shopping and blogging without fearing a huge attack. If Iraq ends up democratic, great. But, it doesn't matter because the war uses up resources at Al-Qaeda's disposal, which may be diminishing through other global efforts (e.g., freezing accounts, anti-money laundering operations). It is a war of attrition, modeled after the Cold War--as the administration has been outlining--in which we count on our economic superiority and "will to win" to outlast the terrorists.

The flaw in the logic is that it assumes Al-Qaeda cannot (a) engage us in Iraq and within our borders simultaneously and (b) continue to raise sufficient funds to meet its objectives. That Al-Qaeda has not attacked within our borders since 9/11 is not evidence that they cannot attack again. It was 8 years between the first WTC bombing and 9/11. Globally, it was about 5 years between the first WTC and the embassy bombings in Africa; a year later they hit the USS Cole. They are patient and opportunistic, and it is unlikely that Operation Iraqi Freedom will make them impatient and less opportunistic. And with oil in the $50+ price range, plentiful poppy fields, antipathy toward America, and sufficient black market experience, it'll be a while before Al-Qaeda runs short of funds.

Finally, it is a less than honest or effective way to use our military, to treat them as RPG-fodder so we can shop online in peace.



Sunday, October 24, 2004
 
Weighting Game
No news on the weight front in terms of poundage. Still hovering at about 196. However, in other ways, I've noticed changes:
  • I can now wear size 33 pants (and not bust the buttons either)
  • I can now wear a L shirt rather an XXL (though XL is still probably better)

Hmm...I guess that's it. But, going from about size 38 and XXL to 33 and L isn't too shabby. I figure if I can get into the mid-180s, I'll be set.



Saturday, October 23, 2004
 
Plurality Rules
I was just thinking about the election and the chances that Bush wins again with less than a majority of the popular vote: That would mark the fourth consecutive presidential election (Clinton '92/'96 and Bush '00/'04) without a majority of the popular vote. Freaky.

I also have been thinking on the red state-blue state division. It occurs to me that the nation may become more red state in the coming two decades because of decisions to have children. Specifically, if red states are more "family-oriented" and express that by having larger families on average, could this cement their majorities? Could red state people in blue states (e.g., rural New England) nudge things to the red side?

To the extent that the blue states are more urban and urbane, I would expect them to have lower birth rates and smaller family sizes, limiting their capacity to shape statewide elections. The only remaining hope for the blue states is immigration (new immigrants tend to have larger families and be more Democratic leaning) and migration of the blue-thinking people from red states. The problem is red states can expand their size more quickly.

On the other hand, it's not a lock that every child will share their parents' political leanings, but I would bet it's correlated enough to lock us into a red state future.


Thursday, October 21, 2004
 
Miserable Sad
Changing your life is incredibly difficult, especially when the change involves somebody you love and care about. So now I find myself having to adapt to my new commitment to graduation and focusing on my life in Nashville without the most important part of my life there to support, encourage, and guide me. And it's all my fault because I chose to pursue this path. It's damned hard not to pick up the phone and call, not to reflexively make mental notes of things to tell her later tonight, not to wonder how her day is going. So, I still do the latter two things and fight the urge to call or email. The immediate future looks long and sad.

In "silver lining" news , I started my area paper (a prelude to my dissertation proposal and dissertation). I have a new "2 hours or 2 pages" rule: I have to write at least 2 hours or until I add 2 pages of text to the area paper. Two days in, I've got 4 pages written. I've also set aside a 30 min block to type in or download citations to my bibliography. These are not huge amounts of time obviously, but lately I've been working on the Grand Canyon theory of accomplishment (i.e., epochal erosion yields natural wonder).


Friday, October 15, 2004
 
Crazy Year
Today I turn 34. In the past year, I've:
  • Become a legitimate freelance writer
  • Become a movie producer
  • Lost 59 lbs (down to 194.6 this morning)
  • Published three scholarly articles as first author
  • Flirted with moving to New York or Chicago, before deciding to stay in Nashville
  • Set in motion plans to end a 7-year romantic relationship this coming weekend.

Have I done enough this year? Here's to hoping that all this change and productivity bear fruit this year.

P.S. I'm still pessimistic about Kerry's chances. Maybe this year's change will be: "be less pessimistic about things."



Thursday, October 07, 2004
 
Visionary Stern
I was listening to the local sports talk radio here, and they mentioned that NBC will institute a 5-second delay on NASCAR races starting this week. This got me thinking about Howard Stern's move to Sirius. I wonder what will be left of broadcast t.v. and radio in 10 years.

If I were NBC (or one of the other networks), I might try expanding into the premium cable or satellite t.v./radio markets. First, the network can use it to develop experimental shows relatively free from "taste" issues regarding nudity, swearing, etc. Second, people who are interested in realistic or adult-focused programming are willing to pay to avoid the PAX-ification of primetime and sports lineups. The network can recoup its development costs through subscriber fees. Third, the nets can use these shows as a source of content for the flagship station (e.g., sanitize a show from the satellite world and rebroadcast for the masses a la Queer Eye's treatment with its Bravo purchase), or use the satellite as an outlet for repurposing shows from the flagship (e.g., air "Joey" thousands of times until enough people have been exposed).


Wednesday, October 06, 2004
 
Weight Update
I haven't posted any weight news in a while because I haven't been exercising and haven't been seeing huge drops in weight. I stopped treadmillng for the past 3 weeks because I have some sort of tendinitis in my knee. However, I noticed that I am still losing a little weight. I'm down to 195.2 lbs, which is 58 lbs overall.

The secret? I think it's that I am awake for an extra 2 hrs per day now. The stress of the job situation made it to wear I would wake up at 5:00 a.m. and not get back to sleep, so I just started getting up and doing stuff, mostly cleaning my apartment or throwing stuff away or whatever. Well, let's say I normally get 8 hrs of sleep per night. That means 16 hrs awake. Now, take 2 hrs of sleep away per night. I've increased my regular daily energy requirements by 12.5%. And the fact that I am doing something beyond sitting in front of the t.v. or computer screen, the increase may be greater.


 
Veepstakes
I'd have to say last night was fairly even in terms of effectiveness of each candidate. Accuracy is another matter, but if you look at the 90 minutes they were together, each had his own positive and negative moments. Some random observations:
  • Cheney loses those who vote based on posture: Does Cheney have some sort of degenerative back disease, or is he auditioning for The Hunchback of Notre Dame after he leaves office?
  • Is this thing on?: A related issue is why Cheney couldn't keep from rustling his damned microphone. The first point explains why, but I guess I'm wondering whether he couldn'tve adjusted it in some way or recognized the effect.
  • Edwards, the eager beaver: I wonder whether Edwards' leaning forward comes across as "engaged" or "too eager to please."
  • Obvious observations: I'm sick of post-analysis analysis which points out that the debates reinforce pre-existing perceptions of the candidates. This is kind of a "duh" comment at this point. They need to sift through and find the moments where Cheney was persuasive even to Democrats and Edwards was persuasive even to Republicans. I'd say Cheney busting on Edwards for his attendance was good. I thought his Howard Dean line was effective and would have been more so had he been able to sit upright. I liked his reference to El Salvador; I'm not sure I buy it as an analogy, but I thought it was likely effective.
  • Hand wringing: Was anybody as shocked as I was to see Cheney fidgeting with his hands, particularly at the beginning? He looked like he was doing a C. Montgomery Burns impression. How did the debate prep folks not catch this? It revealed his unease with the questions and/or format. I'm not fond of all Edwards' gesticulations, but his rarely fall into a negative stereotype.
  • Win for Gwen: Except for a few stumbles on the order of whose turn to respond, I thought she did a pretty good job of picking questions. Some were odd (e.g., Cheney pointing out, "You want me to respond about his qualifications?"), but she had some stuff that threw the candidates. The AIDS question is obvious, but the "without mentioning your running mate by name" rule on responding to one of her questions was great because it forced the candidates to speak outside of their programming (and revealed that Edwards had a tough time deprogramming). Actually, I noticed this with the trial for which I was a juror. The plaintiff's attorney repeatedly violated a rule about using the first names of his clients, in part because I'm sure that's how he practiced and it threw him to have to adapt.


 
Veepstakes
I'd have to say last night was fairly even in terms of effectiveness of each candidate. Accuracy is another matter, but if you look at the 90 minutes they were together, each had his own positive and negative moments. Some random observations:
  • Cheney loses those who vote based on posture: Does Cheney have some sort of degenerative back disease, or is he auditioning for The Hunchback of Notre Dame after he leaves office?
  • Is this thing on?: A related issue is why Cheney couldn't keep from rustling his damned microphone. The first point explains why, but I guess I'm wondering whether he couldn'tve adjusted it in some way or recognized the effect.
  • Edwards, the eager beaver: I wonder whether Edwards' leaning forward comes across as "engaged" or "too eager to please."
  • Obvious observations: I'm sick of post-analysis analysis which points out that the debates reinforce pre-existing perceptions of the candidates. This is kind of a "duh" comment at this point. They need to sift through and find the moments where Cheney was persuasive even to Democrats and Edwards was persuasive even to Republicans. I'd say Cheney busting on Edwards for his attendance was good. I thought his Howard Dean line was effective and would have been more so had he been able to sit upright. I liked his reference to El Salvador; I'm not sure I buy it as an analogy, but I thought it was likely effective.
  • Hand wringing: Was anybody as shocked as I was to see Cheney fidgeting with his hands, particularly at the beginning? He looked like he was doing a C. Montgomery Burns impression. How did the debate prep folks not catch this? It revealed his unease with the questions and/or format. I'm not fond of all Edwards' gesticulations, but his rarely fall into a negative stereotype.
  • Win for Gwen: Except for a few stumbles on the order of whose turn to respond, I thought she did a pretty good job of picking questions. Some were odd (e.g., Cheney pointing out, "You want me to respond about his qualifications?"), but she had some stuff that threw the candidates. The AIDS question is obvious, but the "without mentioning your running mate by name" rule on responding to one of her questions was great because it forced the candidates to speak outside of their programming (and revealed that Edwards had a tough time deprogramming). Actually, I noticed this with the trial for which I was a juror. The plaintiff's attorney repeatedly violated a rule about using the first names of his clients, in part because I'm sure that's how he practiced and it threw him to have to adapt.



Friday, October 01, 2004
 
A War Worth Winning?
No, not Iraq--the presidency. While I thought Kerry summarily trounced the president (not that he was perfect, just immeasurably superior), it occurred to me: why in god's name does he want to stick himself with this cluster fuck in Iraq? Unless he can get the rest of the world to participate and deliver on all the things that need to happen to succeed over ther--which looks fairly impossible no matter who wins the election--all that can happen is for Kerry and the Democrats to get the blame for everything wrong: It may be impossible to win even if he gets all the support of the world, so he looks inept as a leader for not winning; if he can't get everyone together and we lose Iraq, he didn't deliver on his promise to bring in the world, etc.

Now, maybe they could out-Rove the Republicans in the coming year (i.e., blame it on the predecessor), but I doubt they could make it work. Maybe Bush needs to win so that things get even worse over there to improve the Democrats' chances in 2008. A rather tarnished silver lining in a Bush victory.