Society

I use Firefox (well, Iceweasel) from several machines. On a daily basis, at least three: my workstation at home, my workstation at work, and my laptop. I have wanted to have my bookmarks synced between all three of them for some time. I've been using unison to sync them, which mostly works. But firefox likes to store a last-visited timestamp in bookmarks.html, so if I have a browser open at more than one place, I get frequent unison conflicts.

I started searching for better alternatives again, and noticed that the new alternative del.icio.us plugin for Firefox supports a del.icio.us version of the traditional Firefox Bookmarks Toolbar. I use that toolbar a lot, and anything I use in place of standard Firefox bookmarks absolutely must support something like it.

I imported my Firefox bookmarks (about 900 or so) into del.icio.us. They arrived OK, but flattened, as del.icio.us doesn't have a hierarchical structure like Firefox does. After a good deal of experimentation, I have mostly gotten it working how I want. I'm using the bundles mode of the extension toolbar in Firefox, and simulating subfolders by using certain tags. It works fine; not quite what I'd want out of it ideally, but everything else is so much better that I'm happy with it.

The social bookmarking aspects of del.icio.us sound interesting, too, but I haven't started trying to look at that stuff very much yet. Delicious also has a new "Firefox 3" extension that also is documented to work fine in Firefox 2. It has a few new features but nothing I care all that much about.

My main gripe at this point is that the Firefox extension doesn't allow me to set things as private by default. It also doesn't propogate my changes to the site immediately, which led to a considerable amount of confusion initially. On the plus side, it does do a synchronization and store a local cache, so I can still use it offline to load up file:/// links.

Some things about del.icio.us bug me. There are very limited features for editing things in bulk (though Greasemonkey scripts help here). It has a published API, but seems quite limited (I couldn't find out how, in their documentation, to add a tag to an existing bookmark, for instance.)

del.icio.us lets you export all your bookmarks, so you have freedom to leave. Also, if you poke around on freshmeat.net, you can find Free Software alternatives that actually emulate del.icio.us APIs and sites.

I also looked at alternatives, and it seems that the most plausible one is Diigo. But I'm going to refuse to use it right now for two reasons: 1) its Firefox plugin has nothing like the Firefox bookmarks toolbar, and 2) its hideous Terms of Service. If you go to their ToS and scroll down to "Content/Activity Prohibited", you'll see these gems:

6. provides any telephone numbers, street addresses, last names, URLs or email addresses;

7. promotes information that you know is false or misleading or promotes illegal activities or conduct that is abusive, threatening, obscene, defamatory or libelous;

11. furthers or promotes any criminal activity or enterprise or provides instructional information about illegal activities including, but not limited to making or buying illegal weapons, violating someone's privacy, or providing or creating computer viruses;

So, in other words, they can delete me account if I bookmark the Amazon.com contact page, or if I bookmark the opinions of someone I disagree with. Good thing the Vietnam War protesters in the 70s didn't use Diigo, because they'd be kicked off if they wrote about their sit-ins at Berkeley. Also, I didn't even quote the other section that says they get to remove anything you post that they think is offensive, in their sole judgment. Goodbye, links to EFF's articles about RIAA.

Since we can't use last names, I guess it's just "Hillary" and "John" instead of "Clinton" and "McCain". Oh, and don't get me started about the folly of operating a social bookmarking site where you aren't allowed to post URLs. That's right up there with Apple releasing a Windows version of Safari that you aren't allowed to install on PCs.

Compare that to the del.icio.us terms and privacy policy and the contrast is stark indeed.

Yesterday, I read an article on CNN called From $70K to food bank.

It describes a woman who was laid off in February from a job paying $70,000 a year. "Weeks later", with bills "piling up and in need of food for her family", she went to a food bank.

The article proceeds to talk about the subprime lending situation at great length, which is largely irrelevant to this person's situation.

Then we learn she applied for food stamps, but was denied. There's a quote from this person about how frustrating that was, and general "tugging at the heartstrings" trying to make us feel sorry for this woman with two children whose mother moved in to help make the house payment. It seems to me that this is a correct decision; someone that can pay a $2500 mortgage each month ought to move into an apartment before trying to leech food or money from social service agencies.

And that's where this story gets interesting.

She has an interest-only mortgage, and is managing to pay the $2500 bill each month.

If you're not familiar with an interest-only mortgage, here's how it works. The bank loans you money to buy your house -- say, $200,000. This is a loan, and you have to pay interest on it each month, just like a regular mortgage. But with an interest-only mortgage, you never pay off the loan. You could be making monthly payments for 30 years and still owe $200,000. In general, the only ways to "pay off" this kind of loan is to sell your house, or get a conventional mortgage that pays off the interest-only loan.

Interest-only mortgages were largely banned after the Great Depression. Prior to that time, they were how mortgages normally worked. But there are several problems with them. One is that you have to pay on them forever, even after you retire. Another is that you can't move unless you can sell your house for at least as much as the bank financed, even if you've lived there for 20 years. In times of declining housing prices and unemployment, that really stinks. People often default on the loans, and from a bank's perspective, that really stinks, too.

Interest-only mortgages are usually used by banks financing construction (we had one for a few months when we renovated our farmhouse) or other short-term projects such as professional real-estate investors that buy old houses and fix them up to sell at a profit. Except for these things, in general, they should never be used for a primary house. It's not in the interest of the bank or the homeowner.

But since you never pay off the principal, the monthly payments can be lower. It seems likely that this woman took a knowing gamble, buying a home more expensive than she could afford, and somehow found a bank willing to finance this. Problem is, both she and the bank took a knowing risk. If she ever ran into financial difficulties, she'd have to sell the house quick. But now the house is probably worth less than the value of the mortgage, so selling it won't remove the loan -- BUT it would let her pay off a large part of the principal, reducing her monthly payments and giving her some wiggle-room to buy food and pay off the rest of it.

It seems to me that she is unwilling to own up to the calculated risk she took, and wants society to help bail her out. Don't get me wrong; I think we need to help people that run into hard times. We need to help make sure they still have the tools they need to find a job and a place to stay. But bailing out people that take huge financial risks shouldn't be the job of society. Let's help them land softly, but not be enablers keeping them in a home they never could -- and still can't -- afford. Fortunately, I don't think anyone in government (or running for president) is suggesting we should.

Not only that, but her bank shouldn't have ever made that loan. Banks should be held accountable to not sell unwise products to people that rely on them for their primary residences.

Here's another interesting point: in just a few weeks, she had burned through her entire savings.

This, unfortunately, is a quite typical situation for many Americans. My financial planner, and I think most experts, suggest that everyone ought to have 6 months of income in liquid non-retirement assets (savings accounts, investments, etc.) in case something like a layoff happens. Very few Americans have this.

And when it comes down to it, isn't that part of the problem? The economy thrives on consumer spending. Or, put more starkly, overconsumption. If people start saving like they ought to, and stop feeling like they're outcasts just for not keeping up with the Joneses and buying every last gadget or the biggest house, we'd all be in better shape -- but the economy wouldn't have grown as much.

The growth it would have seen, had we all been more responsible, would have been a lot more durable and recession-proof, I think.

I just read Death Be Not Proud (But It Is Cost-Effective) by Chez Pazienza. In his story, Chez talks about his stay in the hospital to have a marble-sized brain tumor removed. Across the room during his stay in neuro ICU, he saw a person far worse off than himself: staples all around his head, barely able to stay conscious, unable to speak. After a few days of this, Chez asked the nurse what had happened to the other person.

It was the same thing.

The difference? Chez had good insurance, and the other person didn't. So Chez got the modern surgery with the latest technology, and the other guy got the Neolithic version. The other patient's family came to visit, clearly heartbroken at his condition, not knowing whether he'd ever be the same. And knowing that even if he'd survive, he'd have years of physical therapy ahead of him.

Then there was the story of the girl whose insurance company denied a liver transplant, calling it "experimental", sending her to her death. He says:

Regardless of what Fox business-creature Neil Cavuto may have to say on the subject, healthcare and profit are two thoroughly antithetical concepts. Giving CEOs the authority to stand on the edge of the arena and issue a final thumbs-up or down while we lay incapacitated or dying is like charging a lion with protecting the Christians.

I entirely agree.

Best YouTube Ever.



Seen on CircleID

Here's an interesting and probably controversial article. It starts with:

When I hear people my age (35+) rip the younger generation I usually keep my mouth shut. But I have something I need to say, so this is my public response to the people who think there is something wrong with young people today.

Let me tell you what I think about young people:

The kids coming of age right now are the greatest generation, and we don’t give them the respect and freedom we were given and it is shameful.

And it goes on from there.

Also I should point out that George Bush is a baby boomer.

Wow.

We just watched An Inconvenient Truth. Not much in there was new to me, but to see it all presented at once is amazing.

There are vast undisputed scientific facts out there -- for instance, that CO2 content in the atmosphere is higher than it's been ever -- and we can go back 650,000 years. The linkage between that and temperatures is inescapable.

Gore makes a good point: shouldn't we be worried about more than terrorism?

Does the thought of parts of Manhattan, San Francisco, and large parts of Florida going underwater suggest a problem exists?

This really is critical and urgent.

We've already been thinking about it lately as we renovate our house. We're paying a little more now for things like airtight insulation, low-energy lighting, efficient heating. Not only will it save us money in the long run, it will help improve our lives and Jacob's life down the road.

The movie's website is over at climatecrisis.net.

Back before Jacob was born, I was reading The Expectant Father: Facts, Tips, and Advice for Dads-to-Be, 2nd ed. by Armin A. Brott and Jennifer Ash. It was a good book and I recommend it.

Towards the end, there was a section that the author clearly was passionate about, and it made me mad too.

He was talking about society's attitudes towards dads. He started by looking at messages that are sent out in commercials. One study of commercials said that "100% of jerks singled out in male-female relationships were male. There were no exceptions. . ." That study also said that 100% of the ignorant and incompetant people in commercials were male as well.

He went on to cite some examples. Tons of slogans like "kid tested, mother approved", "choosy moms choose Jif", Robitussin's "recommended by Dr. Mom", etc. And one for Post Raisin Bran in which a father and daughter are impressed by their cereal. Dad says, "somebody must really love us. Who do you think it is?" The daughter answers, "Mommy!"

Of course, these were just some examples from commercials, but they seem to reflect a message that dads are, at best, incompetant. Brott mentions studies that show that men display the same decision-making skill and affection as parents as women do.

Brott went on to talk about some of his experiences. One time, while he was in a park playing with his children, a little girl started to fall off the top of a slide. He was right there and was able to catch her as she fell -- probably saving her from, at best, a broken bone. The girl's mother rushed over, ignored Brott, and said to the girl, "did he hurt you?"

I started to see this sort of thing all over the place even before Jacob was born. In stores, there would be tons of infant shirts, bibs, etc. saying things like "I love mommy," rarely even one thing that mentioned daddy. Similar patterns were there for greeting cards and pretty much everything else baby-related.

I've noticed this even more since Jacob was born. There have been times when Terah and I are somewhere together, standing right beside each other, and someone will ask Terah all about Jacob, and totally ignore me. Even if I'm the one holding him. I'm sure people are well-intentioned; some of them that have done this are people we know well and I know they mean well. Somtimes, I don't even notice when this is going on (though Terah does and when she mentions it later, I remember it).

Do they just expect that men don't care? Or do they think that since Terah is working part time, and I'm working full time, that we must be "traditional" enough that I don't care to be involved in Jacob's life? (Though I'm not sure that the "detached & uninvolved dad" stereotype ever was true, at least from the examples I can think of) It's hard to miss out on so many moments of Jacob's life during the day that Terah gets to be there for. But that doesn't mean that I'm an uninvolved or clueless dad.

Now, despite this little rant, there are quite a few people out there that have no problem including me in discussions about Jacob -- relatives, friends, people at church, co-workers, etc. In fact, probably more people include me than don't. I really appreciate that, and especially the extra effort some of them go to in order to include me. (I know how much effort it took to find baby clothes that mention dad, for instance) Terah is best at all this, making sure that I get to be part of Jacob's life as much as I possibly can be, and I really appreciate that.

But to Wyeth (makers of Robitussin): Don't think I haven't noticed that Walgreens sells "Wal-Tussin", same active ingredients as your product, and at a lower price. Dr. Dad knows how to buy generic.

Just a few weeks ago, the world heard the news of the tragic school shooting at an Amish school in rural Pennsylvania. A deranged man entered the schoolhouse, bound and gagged female hostages, brought along torture equipment, and shot 10 of them. 5 died, and the remaining 5 are believed to still be hospitalized.

Back in 1990, a deranged man committed a series of murders near the University of Florida campus in Gainesville. The story mentions 5 people that were killed.

Both were tragic situations. Both men killed people that had their whole lives in front of them. Both shook an entire community.

But look at how the communities responded. The Amish responded like this:

CNN reported a grandfather of one of the murdered Amish girls said of the killer on the day of the murder: "We must not think evil of this man."

Jack Meyer, a member of the Brethren community living near the Amish in Lancaster County, explained: "I don't think there's anybody here that wants to do anything but forgive and not only reach out to those who have suffered a loss in that way but to reach out to the family of the man who committed these acts," he told CNN.

The Amish have reached out to Roberts' family. Dwight Lefever, a Roberts family spokesman said an Amish neighbor comforted the Roberts family hours after the shooting and extended forgiveness to them.

An article in a Canadian newspaper the National Post stated that the Amish have set up a charitable fund for the family of the shooter. (Wikipedia)

In addition, the Amish invited the Roberts family to attend the funerals for the Amish girls he killed.

Gainesville reacted this way:

Dianna Hoyt, Christa Hoyt's stepmother, said Rolling's execution has been eagerly awaited by the victims' families. Some will be inside the prison to witness it. . .

Sadie Darnell, who was the police department's media spokeswoman at the time and developed enduring friendships with the victims' families, said Rolling's execution still matters, even if it also provides him more of the notoriety he sought.

"Retribution . . . is important because it represents that our society is holding that person accountable," said Darnell, now a candidate for Alachua County sheriff. (CNN)

We've all heard of murders that have taken place lately. Usually they are accompanied by calls by politicians, victim's family, and sometimes even clergy to kill the perpetrator. In the days after 9/11, there were reports of anybody that looked Middle Eastern being attacked in several different places around the country.

I have never understood this great desire for revenge. How does that help anyone?

What the Amish did was right religiously and morally. They truly followed the New Testament call to love your enemies and forgive. It is not easy to follow all of Jesus' teachings, and nobody said it would be. But they are doing it, and they have already begun healing. Reports are that the Roberts family has become friends with several of the Amish in the area, and they are working to help each other out after this horrible tragedy.

Even putting religion aside for a moment, the Amish actions are quite simply the right thing to do. By spreading love instead of hate, and friendship instead of revenge, they have succeeded in making sure that no cycle of violence starts there.

In contrast, 16 years later, the families of the victims in Florida still aren't healing. They are still angry and bitter. They are still seeking revenge. They hope that their lives will get back to normal after the murderer is killed. But after 16 years of stewing about it, will they really? And what about the family of the murderer, whose lives certainly must have been a mess for the past 16 years? They will now lose a family member. Does anyone care about them, or will they now turn angry at society and possibly spread the pain more?

Imagine what would happen if so many more people around the world took the Amish perspective -- to forgive those that wronged us. How long must it be before we can forgive? How far back do we spread our hate? Do we still hate those that were involved in 9/11, or can we forgive them? Do we still hate the Germans for what their ancestors did in World War II, or can we forgive them? Do we hate politicians with whom we strongly disagree, or think are liars? Do we still hate all those that have wronged us personally -- someone that stole something from us or the sadistic boss?

Knives, electric chairs, and bombs do not buy reconciliation. They can not "win over" the hearts of others. They do not make our lives easier. Hate brings more hate, and more resentment.

Forgiveness is not easy. We all hope that we will never be involved in such a tragedies as these. But let us follow the example the Amish have shown -- forgive for all things, big or small, important or not, painful or not.

Only then will we be at peace with ourselves, and only then will we have the chance to be at peace with our neighbors.

Last year, I wrote about a small town funeral home.

Today it's time to write about small town banks.

So last Saturday, Terah and I went to the bank in the town we're going to be closest to (population 590, compared population 3500 town we live close to now). We were discussing financing for the house and renovations.

The loan officer at the bank is also the city mayor. She's lived in the area for years. I don't know her well, but I know of her and she has heard of me too.

So some of the questions we got were:

"Are you still working the same place I heard about awhile ago?"

"Now should the seller's copy of this example contract go to your aunt or your dad?"

"So the place you're buying -- just a couple of miles from your great uncle then, right?"

Unlike the large nationwide bank we talked to, we were NOT asked:

• Are you farmers? Because we aren't set up to work with farmers. (There's no way a small-town bank could survive with an attitude like that)


• Are you SURE you're not farmers? Because that's a lot of land for someone that's not a farmer, and some of it is a pasture!
  (I hate to break it to him, but 17 acres is not nearly enough land for most farmers around here)


• Hmm, so there's a well on the property? That's cause for concern, but hopefully it will be OK since rural water is hooked up there.


• Could you just tell me who you are and what you're doing again? (I got this EVERY TIME I talked to or e-mailed them, even though it was always the same person)

The person at the small-town bank also actually returned my calls, answered my e-mails, and kept appointments. She also provided all sorts of help for us along the way. It's as if the bank would actually like to have our business and would work to get it.

Guess which bank we're going to use.

So remember Jerry Taylor, the man from Tuttle, OK that threatened to call the FBI on a Linux vendor because an unrelated hosting company had misconfigured Apache?

Well, this story is just getting funnier and funnier.

First off is this story from the Tuttle Times. It basically repeats Taylor's view that the CentOS people were expected to help him with his problem, and that he was somehow entitled to their help. But there are some funny tidbits in the story:

"Phone calls from across the country started coming in to the newspaper and city offices, and e-mails from Switzerland, Australia, Wales and England were received. Many of the web sites discussing the exchange are in foreign languages." I hate to break it to you, but Australia, Wales, and England all speak English.

(Ok, so they did switch from talking about email to web, but it still sounds funny.)

"In their search to find out more, web surfers discovered that the Tuttle Times online forums were hacked, and theorized that it was in retribution for the e-mails. Those forums, however, were corrupted several months ago, and the newspaper’s now former web hosts did not repair it after numerous requests. New forums should be available at the Times site in the coming weeks." I'm so glad to know that your forums were merely corrupted for months and not hacked. Sounds like the IT problems in this town extend well past the city building.

Taylor said: "[CentOS is] a free operating system that this guy gives away, which tells you how much time he’s got on his hands." Grumble.

Quoting Tuttle Mayor Paxton (trying to say what was more important than this): "We have issues with sewer. People here want better park facilities. They want a library." I think this has just validated every stereotype people have about Oklahoma.

Tuttle is more than 7 times larger than my hometown in Kansas, and yet my hometown has had a library for years.

Jerry Taylor also reported having 500 e-mails and numerous phone messages when he arrived to work Monday.

There's a new blurb on the Wikipedia page about Tuttle about all this. And in their talk page about the now-deleted article on Jerry Taylor, one person wrote: "Mr. Taylor's actions have coined a new term of art "Tuttled", in reference to the invocation of criminal consequences by one who is ignorant of the true situation. Since this is now a part of the English vernacular the story behind the term should be explained to give it an historical context. It is no longer about the action of a single person and an attempt to publicly vilify him, it is about a world-wide common experience of dealing with a Kafka-esque minor government official who, through ignorance, creates problems far beyond their normal sphere of influence. The page should be returned to the public."

The Register has two new stories about it. The first reports that Taylor has been interviewed by all sorts of media and says that he did the right thing. The second, Linux conquered, Tuttle man takes on London is a story about the grandson of the namesake of Tuttle, OK -- who happens to be the current US ambassador to the UK. This person is refusing to pay the regular London car fees. The mayor of London said: "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could pay the charge like everybody else and not skive out of it like some chiseling little crook."

And finally, there's some incredibly funny photoshop work on this one over at fark.com (you have to scroll down a ways). Also, this comment:

"A small-town American politician wants a British newspaper to turn off the Internet.

Say that to yourself a few times. Please."