Sebastien turned one year old today. Wow. One year. Jen put together a nice collage of month-by-month photos. A couple of things we noticed when looking at the pics lined up like that:

1) We thought he was a cute baby. Not a chance. He’s much cuter now.
2) We thought he had a lot of hair as a newborn. Um, yeah. He looks bald in those early shots.

It has been quite a year, and it’s safe to say that we’ve learned a lot — who would have thought that an infant would be such a wise sage? Life has changed quite a bit for us. I was just thinking last night that just a year or two ago we were fixtures at the New River Gorge (and Roger’s campground). Now, we probably wouldn’t know a soul down there. We both miss those days at least a little bit, but these days are much better.

Anyway, we’re having a little family party for him this evening (including his first taste of birthday cake), which should include many, many presents from our families. Expect some pictures as soon as we get DSL (don’t get me started about how much of a pain it was for us to put those new images on the homepage over a dialup)….

Posted on 12 May 2004

While I like talking about politics as much as the next arm chair pundit, I am very tired of hearing about the (insert the political idealogy)’s control of the national media. According to the Right, the Left has hopelessly brainwashed the national media, skewing everything to the Left. And according to the Left (see the link above), the Right has controlled the national media for 30 years, suppressing the truth from the country.

The problem is, each side (who only view things through their own set of red or blue tinted glasses) believe that somehow, the national media must be completely unbiased in their reporting. These people live, eat, and breath politics, and expect other people to do the same, but they also expect the national media to be completely unbiased (or at least on their team). Of course some media outlets are going to be biased. Isn’t that the point of a free press? If you don’t like Rush Limbaugh, then don’t listen to him. Nothing you say will convince a ditto-head to stop listening to him. Save your breath. And don’t forget, there are plenty of left-leaning media outlets. Maybe they aren’t as loud or as well listened to, but they exist (as a side note — and I’m too lazy to find links — I thought it was interesting when it was announced that Al Franken would do a radio, it was pointed out that he only had a one year contract. Not the best way to build a loyal fan base — how long has Rush been on the air?).

It seems to me that this sort of finger pointing is simply a way to shift the blame. The Democrats can say “it’s Rush Limbaugh’s fault Al Gore lost! He gave his listeners bad information!” If Bush loses come November, the Republicans can claim “those Lefty newspapers were spreading lies!” Why shoulder the blame when you can point it at someone else?

Posted on 11 May 2004

Perhaps it’s my previous life as an endurance athlete, or my love of bicycles, but I find this event (the Raid Calfornie-Oregon) to be incredibly interesting. It’s described (quite fittingly) by its creator as the crash between a traditional brevet and an alleycat. Basically, the event was a race from San Francisco to Portland, with a relatively minimal set of rules: you’ve got five days, you’ve got have a cyclometer and lights, and you’ve got to have “checkpoints” from along the way. That’s it. Take whichever route you choose, just be sure you cover every kilometer on your bike.

The ride reports from some of the racers are good views into the souls of the suffering. Most of us would be quite happy to ride 150 in a day, let alone do it for five days straight with no real company through the hills of northern California. I assume it’s a bit like riding part of the Tour de France, except without the benefit of a team of mechanics, masseurs, and chefs following you around…..

Posted on 8 May 2004

Why are some libertarians so overzealous in their defence of the fast food industry? I understand their love of personal responsibility, but let it go! It’s interesting — at either end of the political spectrum exists a land of moral fuzziness. Here’s a libertarian saying that everything is good, even if it makes you fat and causes you to die young. You have a right to do that! This is America, after all. Libertarians are afraid of passing judgement, lest that be construed as pining for government action. The only judge in their world is the market — if the market allows for it, then it must be ok.

Posted on 7 May 2004

Nick Sande (of Surly fame) has a really nice post about nice people (or the lack thereof).

Posted on 6 May 2004

Well, we moved into the new abode on Saturday, and we got a fair amount of unpacking done — at least enough to feel comfy. The move went very well, with plenty of friends to help out (and Jen’s dad organizing the truck for us), and we managed not to break anything either. Pics will be coming as soon as the DSL gets switched on.

Posted on 4 May 2004

Came across this interesting article on Reason about fight against the secularization of America. The article itself was mostly a summary and review of the book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, dealing with the very non-religious ideas of the Founding Fathers. I found myself both agreeing with and being troubled by many of the assertions that author made.

First, the good news. I agree with the premise that our nation’s Founding Fathers were, in fact, trying to create a wall of separation between church and state. If not, why isn’t the Constituion more explicitly religous? Society at the time would have been much more receptive to overtly religious statements in the Constitution, but the framers remember where they came from. Keep in mind that the Puritans (who many today would call radical Christian fundamentalists) came to the New World to avoid the persecution of the Church of England. The leaders at the time had the foresight to realize that they were escaping a government dictated by a bureaucratic religion, and they wisely avoided the same mistake. People that try and paint Thomas Jefferson or other framers as “devoutly religious” men don’t know their history — Jefferson himself rewrote sections of the Bible to make it less religious.

But, now, the bad news. The author makes the mistake of claiming the secularists have the majority. If there is a backlash against secularism, it’s because the vast majority of Americans will associate themselves with a religion. Here are some statistics. 76% of the U.S. population consider themselves Christian. Only 13% call themselves “nonreligious”, and a whopping 0.4% consider themselves atheist. If there is a backlash against secularism, it’s because only a small percentage of the population is “non-religious.” But, like I said, I don’t disagree with the book’s premise — our nation was not (and is not) a Christian nation, despite what the numbers say. Our laws are nothing more than a reflection of natural law (just about anyone would agree with the basic rights affrorded to us), and attempts at further attaching national law to Biblical law have failed. We are truly a melting pot, even today, and that will invite the sort of tension the article identifies.

Posted on 27 April 2004

This article on Reason about a new generation of “socially aware” clothing manufacturers who are trying to buck the trend and keep their work in shops in the U.S. that actually take care of their workers. The article itself is quite positive about American Apparel, and it poses some interesting questions about the offshoring of the textile industry.

There is a double edge sword when avoiding offshoring completely. If you’re trying to help Third World workers who are being abused in sweatshops and you simply decide to not use those sweatshops, you’re not really helping those folks. They’ve got work, and if it has to be in a sweat shop, well, so be it. And if you choose to “help” those folks in the Third World by exclusively buying clothing from American Apparel, well, you’re not really helping them. You are helping folks in L.A. who work for AA though.

So what should companies do? One thought is an approach much like what Timbuk2 took when the design of some of the products was too complex for their shop in San Francisco. The owners actively sought factories in Asia that did good work and treated their workers fairly. And the owners make regular trips to the factory to be sure that those standards are being consistently upheld. In some ways, at the moment, Timbuk2 is a paradigm of smart, progressive, socially aware production — they are still making their messenger bags by hand in the SF shop, and they are doing their part for the global economy by taking care of their workers-for-hire in Asia.

If you’d like to read more about Timbuk2’s manufacturing process, check out this.

Posted on 22 April 2004

NPR had an interesting segment this morning about the detainees in Guantanamo and the Supreme Court’s involvement in their hearings. The most interesting bit — supporters of the administration and its policy of not allowing the detainees access to lawyers compared their policy to what the Vietnamese and Koreans did during those respective conflicts.

Huh? Now there’s a good argument: “See, the Viet Cong did it us, so it’s ok for us to do it to someone else.” There’s some airtight logic for you.

Posted on 20 April 2004

Perhaps it’s time I modify the defaults for MT to avoid the embarrassment of turning on comments and turning off line breaks. Sorry for the utter goof-up last night….

Posted on 19 April 2004