Watching another season of "Angel." Such a fun show. Earlier, I watched the most insipid British, gay movie. Bleh.
Trying to create just how I'm going to do my presentation tomorrow for New Vision.
Today has totally been a day of rest. I don't think I've done a thing but screw around on the internet, read, nap, make food and throw some laundry in.
Barney, after going hog wild on the attention getting thing two days ago, has settled back down and is diong his best to be inoffensive.
I have about $1000 in software to purchase in the next two weeks. Urk. Tax software and the updated version of the mortgage software. I think I'm also going to go with the website that goes along with the mortgage software. It's reasonable.
Things upstairs have indeed been much quieter lately. I wonder if it's going to stay improved.
Carlos and Nick are silent as a tomb. Wolfram has run in the other direction. It looks as if my commitment to stay away from men for six months (including not allowing in through my front door) will be easier to keep.
I was talking to Denny the other day about the car thing; I found a V8 Phaeton in Cleveland that was cheaper (by a lot) and with much lower mileage. He asks "yes, but which car is it that is fully you when you pull up somewhere?"
Rotten bastard. After all this time of not being at ALL in my world, he pegs me with the first dart.
I'm thinking of going up there Thursday to check the car out. I think Denny would go up there with me.
He also says he has a friend at a credit union that can help me get a decent loan.
DJHJD
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Friday, January 06, 2006
What year is this anyway? Rollback to 1214 AD.
What Year Is This Anyway?
By Nick Turse
TomDispatch.com
Thursday 05 January 2006
Source article
What might happen to an "often cruel and treacherous" national leader who "ignored and contravened the traditional" norms at home and waged "expensive wars abroad [that] were unsuccessful"?
On June 15, 1215, just such a leader arrived at Runnymede, England and - under pressure from rebellious barons angered by his ruinous foreign wars and the fact that "to finance them he had charged excessively for royal justice, sold church offices, levied heavy aids," and appointed "advisers from outside the baronial ranks" - placed his seal on the Magna Carta. The document, which was finalized on June 19th, primarily guaranteed church rights and baronial privileges, while barring the king from exploiting feudal custom. While it may have been of limited importance to King John or his rebel nobles (as one scholar notes, "It was doomed to failure. Magna Carta lasted less than three months"), the document had a lasting impact on the rest of us, providing the very basis for the Anglo-American legal tradition.
Over the years, the Magna Carta came to be interpreted as a document that forbade taxation without representation and guaranteed trial by jury. In the US, it is seen as providing a basis for the 5th Amendment to the Bill of Rights that holds: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." (The Magna Carta states: "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned... but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.") While many progressive and democratic understandings of the document, popular from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, have now been dismissed as misinterpretations, the Magna Carta has one absolutely significant feature. As the website of the US National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) notes, "When King John confirmed Magna Carta with his seal, he was acknowledging the now firmly embedded concept that no man - not even the king - is above the law."
Fast forward 561 years. Says NARA, "In 1776, the Founding Fathers searched for a historical precedent for asserting their rightful liberties from King George III and the English Parliament." They found it in the Magna Carta. Fast forward another 230 years. Their war for independence long since over, Britain's former rebel colonies begin the new year of 2006 on a precipice. During the previous 365 days, they saw, among other shocking displays, their Vice President publicly campaign against Senator John McCain's anti-torture amendment and, as such, essentially offer his support for illegal torture. Then, following a failed attempt by the President to quash a New York Times story on the National Security Agency (which the paper had already suppressed for a year), the people also found out that their President had ordered unlawful spying on American citizens.
After the latter scandal became public, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (who, in 2002 as White House counsel, penned a memo advising the President on how to circumvent the 1996 War Crimes Act) claimed that George Bush had the right to violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which makes it illegal to spy on US citizens in the United States without prior or retroactive - within 72 hours - court approval) due to his "inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution." This, despite the fact that in 2004 Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the court, insisted, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." Bush himself then came out swinging, claiming that he had no need for the courts since he acted as his own agency of oversight, and his acts were legal because he "swore to uphold the laws."
The President's threatened veto of the McCain anti-torture amendment, the Vice-President's pro-torture campaign, the President's illegal spying, which he proudly claimed he had re-authorized many times over, his attempt to squelch the free press (which Thomas Jefferson once called "the only security of all" and about which he stated, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter"), and his own and the Attorney General's defense of all of the above, are not only the latest examples of the administration's quest to shred the US Constitution and expand already vast presidential powers past anything conceivably envisioned by the founders of the United States, but also a direct attempt to overturn nearly 800 years of Anglo-American legal precedent. In other words, the administration has launched nothing short of a bid to invalidate the guiding precepts of what the US government acknowledges to be the Ur document that inspired and provided precedent for America's founders to issue their Declaration of Independence in 1776: the Magna Carta.
In 1957, the American Bar Association erected a monument at Runnymede to "acknowledg[e] the debt American law and constitutionalism" owed to the Magna Carta. Today, the defining tenet of the American legal system is in jeopardy as the Bush administration has attempted to roll back the clock to the 13th century. Such a gambit seeks to do nothing short of shatter and effectively bury the framework for the Anglo-American legal tradition by transforming the chief executive into an unchecked despot and so plunging us into a pre-1215 world. The implications are dire. As Harold Hongju Koh, dean of the Yale Law School, observed, "If the president has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
During the birth of the United States, John Adams - who also proclaimed that Britain's rule under which "The Law, and the Fact, are both to be decided by the same single Judge" was "directly repugnant to the Great Charter [Magna Carta] itself" - wrote of "a government of laws and not of men." During the Watergate crisis (to hop a couple of centuries) and just after he was fired by a President who wanted to shield his criminal acts by citing the doctrine of executive privilege, Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox warned, "Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people." Just 33 years later, the question again begs answer - is this to be a nation of laws or of men? Is this to be a nation that recognizes nearly 800 years of Anglo-American legal precedent in which even the nation's chief executive is subject to the rule of law, or one that allows that leader to assume the unchecked rights of a sovereign during the Middle Ages? Are we willing to accept the Bush administration's latest rollback campaign and reset the calendar to 1214?
By Nick Turse
TomDispatch.com
Thursday 05 January 2006
Source article
What might happen to an "often cruel and treacherous" national leader who "ignored and contravened the traditional" norms at home and waged "expensive wars abroad [that] were unsuccessful"?
On June 15, 1215, just such a leader arrived at Runnymede, England and - under pressure from rebellious barons angered by his ruinous foreign wars and the fact that "to finance them he had charged excessively for royal justice, sold church offices, levied heavy aids," and appointed "advisers from outside the baronial ranks" - placed his seal on the Magna Carta. The document, which was finalized on June 19th, primarily guaranteed church rights and baronial privileges, while barring the king from exploiting feudal custom. While it may have been of limited importance to King John or his rebel nobles (as one scholar notes, "It was doomed to failure. Magna Carta lasted less than three months"), the document had a lasting impact on the rest of us, providing the very basis for the Anglo-American legal tradition.
Over the years, the Magna Carta came to be interpreted as a document that forbade taxation without representation and guaranteed trial by jury. In the US, it is seen as providing a basis for the 5th Amendment to the Bill of Rights that holds: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." (The Magna Carta states: "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned... but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.") While many progressive and democratic understandings of the document, popular from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, have now been dismissed as misinterpretations, the Magna Carta has one absolutely significant feature. As the website of the US National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) notes, "When King John confirmed Magna Carta with his seal, he was acknowledging the now firmly embedded concept that no man - not even the king - is above the law."
Fast forward 561 years. Says NARA, "In 1776, the Founding Fathers searched for a historical precedent for asserting their rightful liberties from King George III and the English Parliament." They found it in the Magna Carta. Fast forward another 230 years. Their war for independence long since over, Britain's former rebel colonies begin the new year of 2006 on a precipice. During the previous 365 days, they saw, among other shocking displays, their Vice President publicly campaign against Senator John McCain's anti-torture amendment and, as such, essentially offer his support for illegal torture. Then, following a failed attempt by the President to quash a New York Times story on the National Security Agency (which the paper had already suppressed for a year), the people also found out that their President had ordered unlawful spying on American citizens.
After the latter scandal became public, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (who, in 2002 as White House counsel, penned a memo advising the President on how to circumvent the 1996 War Crimes Act) claimed that George Bush had the right to violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which makes it illegal to spy on US citizens in the United States without prior or retroactive - within 72 hours - court approval) due to his "inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution." This, despite the fact that in 2004 Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the court, insisted, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." Bush himself then came out swinging, claiming that he had no need for the courts since he acted as his own agency of oversight, and his acts were legal because he "swore to uphold the laws."
The President's threatened veto of the McCain anti-torture amendment, the Vice-President's pro-torture campaign, the President's illegal spying, which he proudly claimed he had re-authorized many times over, his attempt to squelch the free press (which Thomas Jefferson once called "the only security of all" and about which he stated, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter"), and his own and the Attorney General's defense of all of the above, are not only the latest examples of the administration's quest to shred the US Constitution and expand already vast presidential powers past anything conceivably envisioned by the founders of the United States, but also a direct attempt to overturn nearly 800 years of Anglo-American legal precedent. In other words, the administration has launched nothing short of a bid to invalidate the guiding precepts of what the US government acknowledges to be the Ur document that inspired and provided precedent for America's founders to issue their Declaration of Independence in 1776: the Magna Carta.
In 1957, the American Bar Association erected a monument at Runnymede to "acknowledg[e] the debt American law and constitutionalism" owed to the Magna Carta. Today, the defining tenet of the American legal system is in jeopardy as the Bush administration has attempted to roll back the clock to the 13th century. Such a gambit seeks to do nothing short of shatter and effectively bury the framework for the Anglo-American legal tradition by transforming the chief executive into an unchecked despot and so plunging us into a pre-1215 world. The implications are dire. As Harold Hongju Koh, dean of the Yale Law School, observed, "If the president has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
During the birth of the United States, John Adams - who also proclaimed that Britain's rule under which "The Law, and the Fact, are both to be decided by the same single Judge" was "directly repugnant to the Great Charter [Magna Carta] itself" - wrote of "a government of laws and not of men." During the Watergate crisis (to hop a couple of centuries) and just after he was fired by a President who wanted to shield his criminal acts by citing the doctrine of executive privilege, Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox warned, "Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people." Just 33 years later, the question again begs answer - is this to be a nation of laws or of men? Is this to be a nation that recognizes nearly 800 years of Anglo-American legal precedent in which even the nation's chief executive is subject to the rule of law, or one that allows that leader to assume the unchecked rights of a sovereign during the Middle Ages? Are we willing to accept the Bush administration's latest rollback campaign and reset the calendar to 1214?
Pastor accused of propositioning a cop
Source article
The Rev. Lonnie Latham, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality and a national figure in the Southern Baptist Convention, was arrested Tuesday in Oklahoma City and charged with propositioning a male undercover police officer.
"I was set up," he protested while leaving jail. "I was in the area pastoring to police."
Latham was in the parking lot of the Habana Inn, an area not known for police officers but rather for male prostitutes who flag down cars, police Capt. Jeffrey Becker told the Associated Press.
Becker said Latham asked an undercover officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex.
Police arrested the pastor and impounded his 2005 Mercedes. He was charged with a misdemeanor count of offering to engage in an act of lewdness and was released on $500 bail Wednesday afternoon.
Latham could be sentenced to a year in jail. He also faces a $2,500 fine.
Latham will also face a puzzled congregation at South Tulsa Baptist Church, where he is the senior pastor.
Latham, a member of the Southern Baptists' executive committee, has spoken out against same-sex marriage and has supported a Southern Baptist convention directive aimed at converting gays into heterosexuals. Southern Baptists are urged to befriend gays and lesbians and try to convince them that they can become heterosexual "if they accept Jesus Christ as their savior and reject their 'sinful, destructive lifestyle.' "
His church has posted a note on its Web site that reads, "We are deeply grieved to hear the news about our pastor, Lonnie Latham. Our first concerns are with Lonnie, his family, and our church family. We will be focused on doing what we can to minister to everyone in this difficult time. Our church has a great history and a great future of ministry in this community. We would appreciate your prayers."
The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States.
The Rev. Robyn Murphy, a spokeswoman for Soulforce, an organization devoted to changing the hearts and minds of religious leaders who engage in anti-gay campaigns, was sympathetic to Latham.
"The anti-gay bias has now claimed another victim," Murphy said. "Now he will be ridiculed for being gay."
"What he needs some is some sanity and grace, and that's the message he should have been spreading all along," she said. "We wish him well, and we wish he didn't have to be outed in this fashion."
Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, suggested that Latham's arrest was indicative of a larger pattern.
"This is just another example of people who are the most viciously homophobic and at the same time are clearly gay," he told the PlanetOut Network, adding that he suspects the same is true for many anti-gay leaders.
"It's nearly impossible to explain the irrational hatred of our opponents, other than to think they have internal conflicts about their own sexuality," Foreman concluded.
The Rev. Lonnie Latham, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality and a national figure in the Southern Baptist Convention, was arrested Tuesday in Oklahoma City and charged with propositioning a male undercover police officer.
"I was set up," he protested while leaving jail. "I was in the area pastoring to police."
Latham was in the parking lot of the Habana Inn, an area not known for police officers but rather for male prostitutes who flag down cars, police Capt. Jeffrey Becker told the Associated Press.
Becker said Latham asked an undercover officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex.
Police arrested the pastor and impounded his 2005 Mercedes. He was charged with a misdemeanor count of offering to engage in an act of lewdness and was released on $500 bail Wednesday afternoon.
Latham could be sentenced to a year in jail. He also faces a $2,500 fine.
Latham will also face a puzzled congregation at South Tulsa Baptist Church, where he is the senior pastor.
Latham, a member of the Southern Baptists' executive committee, has spoken out against same-sex marriage and has supported a Southern Baptist convention directive aimed at converting gays into heterosexuals. Southern Baptists are urged to befriend gays and lesbians and try to convince them that they can become heterosexual "if they accept Jesus Christ as their savior and reject their 'sinful, destructive lifestyle.' "
His church has posted a note on its Web site that reads, "We are deeply grieved to hear the news about our pastor, Lonnie Latham. Our first concerns are with Lonnie, his family, and our church family. We will be focused on doing what we can to minister to everyone in this difficult time. Our church has a great history and a great future of ministry in this community. We would appreciate your prayers."
The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States.
The Rev. Robyn Murphy, a spokeswoman for Soulforce, an organization devoted to changing the hearts and minds of religious leaders who engage in anti-gay campaigns, was sympathetic to Latham.
"The anti-gay bias has now claimed another victim," Murphy said. "Now he will be ridiculed for being gay."
"What he needs some is some sanity and grace, and that's the message he should have been spreading all along," she said. "We wish him well, and we wish he didn't have to be outed in this fashion."
Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, suggested that Latham's arrest was indicative of a larger pattern.
"This is just another example of people who are the most viciously homophobic and at the same time are clearly gay," he told the PlanetOut Network, adding that he suspects the same is true for many anti-gay leaders.
"It's nearly impossible to explain the irrational hatred of our opponents, other than to think they have internal conflicts about their own sexuality," Foreman concluded.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Thursday, with feeling
Spent most of today with Denny, which was a nice change from my previous relationship with him. That usually made me want to puke up a lung, as he was so totally NOT into anything important to me.
We motored around, looking for a Passat W8 that was listed on eBay. The dealer had moved, left no forwarding address, their phone number was answered by a fax machine, and I couldn't log into eBay on my Treo to save my life. We went all the way down to Stafford, looking for this dealer.
After, I was talking to Lisa - she pointed out that it was NOT the car for me, as it had been such a struggle to even find it, and I wasn't successful with that. I realized - well, no, it was NOT the car I wanted - it was a compromise. The car I want is in Austin.
I spent another couple of hours tonight researching the Phaeton, pulling down the build codes, looking through the equipment/option code lists and combination choices. I need more expansion cards for my Treo; even after deleting all of the pictures of other Phaetons, I don't have room for these new pdfs.
Which leads to a whole conversation about compromise and settling for less than what we really want. That's a big clue, a HUGE clue that you cannot accept something larger for yourself. In other words, as soon as you start to think that you should settle for something less, it's a clue that you believe yourself unworthy of having what you want.
I'm really about over listening to some people's non-stop conversation about their sex lives. I've been having recurring conversations with several people that involve me listening and lobbing in occasional "uh-huhs" while they carry on about how hot, how wonderful, how .. who gives a fuck? I'm WORKING? Of course, one friend, who shall remain nameless, REPEATS everything. Over and over and over and over and over and over.
"Did I tell you how hot he was?" Yes, sixteen times. "Did I send you his picture?" Yes, and you've asked me if I received it five times.
So rarely do one of these people even ask a.) how I am, b.) if I am busy, c.) do I want to listen to them carry on about their random sexual acts and d.) have I yet opened up my wrists with a dull, rusty razor blade.
In these conversations, a consistent feature is:
Caller: "droning on"
Divo: "Uh, I have to go - I have an appointment/death squad at my door/suicide note to write."
Caller: "oh, okay .. drone, drone, drone, drone."
My weakness is in failing to interrupt these calls right off with "Hey, these are work hours and I want to focus. Call me later (like shortly after I've sawed my head off with a blunt sugar spoon, please.)" It is also in not bellowing down the horn "Hey, I'm busy and have to hang up. GOOD BYE."
Perhaps I can adopt these conversational techniques in the next few days.
We motored around, looking for a Passat W8 that was listed on eBay. The dealer had moved, left no forwarding address, their phone number was answered by a fax machine, and I couldn't log into eBay on my Treo to save my life. We went all the way down to Stafford, looking for this dealer.
After, I was talking to Lisa - she pointed out that it was NOT the car for me, as it had been such a struggle to even find it, and I wasn't successful with that. I realized - well, no, it was NOT the car I wanted - it was a compromise. The car I want is in Austin.
I spent another couple of hours tonight researching the Phaeton, pulling down the build codes, looking through the equipment/option code lists and combination choices. I need more expansion cards for my Treo; even after deleting all of the pictures of other Phaetons, I don't have room for these new pdfs.
Which leads to a whole conversation about compromise and settling for less than what we really want. That's a big clue, a HUGE clue that you cannot accept something larger for yourself. In other words, as soon as you start to think that you should settle for something less, it's a clue that you believe yourself unworthy of having what you want.
I'm really about over listening to some people's non-stop conversation about their sex lives. I've been having recurring conversations with several people that involve me listening and lobbing in occasional "uh-huhs" while they carry on about how hot, how wonderful, how .. who gives a fuck? I'm WORKING? Of course, one friend, who shall remain nameless, REPEATS everything. Over and over and over and over and over and over.
"Did I tell you how hot he was?" Yes, sixteen times. "Did I send you his picture?" Yes, and you've asked me if I received it five times.
So rarely do one of these people even ask a.) how I am, b.) if I am busy, c.) do I want to listen to them carry on about their random sexual acts and d.) have I yet opened up my wrists with a dull, rusty razor blade.
In these conversations, a consistent feature is:
Caller: "droning on"
Divo: "Uh, I have to go - I have an appointment/death squad at my door/suicide note to write."
Caller: "oh, okay .. drone, drone, drone, drone."
My weakness is in failing to interrupt these calls right off with "Hey, these are work hours and I want to focus. Call me later (like shortly after I've sawed my head off with a blunt sugar spoon, please.)" It is also in not bellowing down the horn "Hey, I'm busy and have to hang up. GOOD BYE."
Perhaps I can adopt these conversational techniques in the next few days.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Fun with Dick and Jane
I'm watching the 1977 Movie "Fun with Dick and Jane," which is a hoot. George Segal has been trying to rob businesses for hours, and he hasn't had the guts to do anything. Jane Fonda is just SO dry and sarcastic.
They're driving around in a stolen XK-R, and just robbed a motel. It's just a stitch. I had forgotten that they robbed a televangelist.
Jane Fonda is 69 years old this year. Holy cow. She just looks amazing. I had forgotten that she had the exercise videos back in the 1980s - when she was in her 40s. MIDDLE forties.
My age.
Wow.
Exchanged a few text messages today with Wolfram. He's so weird. Well, I'd have to say that he's a step forward, since he isn't looking for a handout, and he is interested in me personally. Barb says she's going to bring him to our Whores of Baghdad meeting on Friday night.
Finished the answers to one of my classes today. Tomorrow, working on another loan, and then also working on a paper for my class, and organizing another course that I have to publish.
Ordered the Fabulair initial merchandise. It should be in anytime. Also working on our parade float and entry, on the website, on photo shoots coming up, on flight attendant costumes .. lord, there's a lot to keep track of.
That, plus ramping up for tax season, working on church, trying to exercise - again, keeping everything else working. Urk.
I need to do some more self-work; blarg. Doubting that my dad will come through with his promises next week. Blah, blah.
Had my wrists, elbows and shoulders adjusted today; it was excruciating in a lovely way.
My bottle of White Star remains yet in my 'fridge, untouched. No one to drink it with. Bleh.
They're driving around in a stolen XK-R, and just robbed a motel. It's just a stitch. I had forgotten that they robbed a televangelist.
Jane Fonda is 69 years old this year. Holy cow. She just looks amazing. I had forgotten that she had the exercise videos back in the 1980s - when she was in her 40s. MIDDLE forties.
My age.
Wow.
Exchanged a few text messages today with Wolfram. He's so weird. Well, I'd have to say that he's a step forward, since he isn't looking for a handout, and he is interested in me personally. Barb says she's going to bring him to our Whores of Baghdad meeting on Friday night.
Finished the answers to one of my classes today. Tomorrow, working on another loan, and then also working on a paper for my class, and organizing another course that I have to publish.
Ordered the Fabulair initial merchandise. It should be in anytime. Also working on our parade float and entry, on the website, on photo shoots coming up, on flight attendant costumes .. lord, there's a lot to keep track of.
That, plus ramping up for tax season, working on church, trying to exercise - again, keeping everything else working. Urk.
I need to do some more self-work; blarg. Doubting that my dad will come through with his promises next week. Blah, blah.
Had my wrists, elbows and shoulders adjusted today; it was excruciating in a lovely way.
My bottle of White Star remains yet in my 'fridge, untouched. No one to drink it with. Bleh.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Monday post #2
A rather productive day. Tomorrow is jam packed with appointments, which rather suggests that I won't be getting much work work done. I hope that nothing unexpected happens tomorrow morning - I need for this loan to close, and I don't have a lot of attention to babysit it tomorrow.
This movie was much closer to the end than I was expecting. Interesting.
I've been working on Fabulair steadily, which feels VERY good. Today, I could feel that it would become full time around March or April. Without investors.
Was fiddling around on eBay tonight, and found an owner's manual for the Phaeton - so, I nabbed it. I want to go up to Austin and check out that Phaeton up there.
I'm tired, but I am not sleepy. I feel like I'm getting kind of sick, but I feel fine. Weird, weird.
Wolfram has been out of touch all day. Lovely.
Let's just get interested in a confused, married closet case who's a great kisser.
I so need to clean the corners in here. I need Joey back to touch up the paint, fix a shelf and fix some furniture. That's what I need.
That, and X10. And a CDMA repeater/extender.
This movie was much closer to the end than I was expecting. Interesting.
I've been working on Fabulair steadily, which feels VERY good. Today, I could feel that it would become full time around March or April. Without investors.
Was fiddling around on eBay tonight, and found an owner's manual for the Phaeton - so, I nabbed it. I want to go up to Austin and check out that Phaeton up there.
I'm tired, but I am not sleepy. I feel like I'm getting kind of sick, but I feel fine. Weird, weird.
Wolfram has been out of touch all day. Lovely.
Let's just get interested in a confused, married closet case who's a great kisser.
I so need to clean the corners in here. I need Joey back to touch up the paint, fix a shelf and fix some furniture. That's what I need.
That, and X10. And a CDMA repeater/extender.
The Age of e-Cash
Casey Research, Inc. c/o InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. 14900 Landmark Blvd, Suite #350, Dallas, Texas 75254.
(c) Casey Research, Inc. 2005
He's big, he's bad. He sidles up to you on an otherwise deserted street and growls: "Your phone or your life."
This alternate take on the highwayman's traditional choice for his victim--life vs. money--has probably not yet been uttered, at least not in this country. But it may not be far off.
Japan, as it so often does with things electronic, has taken the lead in exploring the possibilities of "e-cash" as the preferred form of retail transaction. Increasingly, that brings into play an interface between the ubiquitous cell phone and the bits and bytes that pass for a medium of monetary exchange these days.
Modern life is, to a large extent, about convenience and saving time. Take dining out, for example. You eat, you chat with your companions, you conduct a business deal, whatever. Then, at the end, you have to settle your bill. This takes time. It has to be brought to you, then you have to wait in line at the register, then you have to wait some more while your credit card is processed, or submit your PIN for a debit card, then you have to sign.
Suppose you could just get up and walk out of the restaurant, pausing only long enough to wave your cell phone at the check-out desk. In a growing number of establishments, that's exactly what you can do in Japan today.
All you need is an e-cash card or a properly equipped cell phone. These smart cards and phones feature built-in antennas and integrated circuits that allow for the transmission and receipt of electronic signals. When you swipe one of them near a compatible scanner, e-money is deducted from your account--which can be replenished with paper money at thousands of automated docking stations around the country (reverse ATMs), or over the Internet with a credit card.
What began four years ago as a time-saving alternative payment method for high-speed rail commuters has rapidly morphed into a staple of Japanese life. An estimated 15 million people (projected to reach 40 million by 2008) now use e-cash for 15.8 million transactions per month, a 100% increase over 2004. E-cash is accepted by a wide range of retailers, including convenience stores, restaurants, department stores, newsstands, electronics dealers, furniture stores, and supermarkets. There are even vending machines where a wave of the hand will net you a Coke. Many shoppers are thus able to leave home with nothing in their pockets but their cell phone.
Time savings can be significant, especially in a crowded restaurant at lunch hour or in a supermarket. One study indicates that supermarket shoppers save a minimum of 10% of their time over those who pay with cash, and even more over those who pay by credit card.
In the confident words of Makoto Yamada, an executive at bitWallet, Inc., the country's largest virtual money service, "Japan is moving toward the cashless society."
Will the concept make its way across the Pacific? That's a good question. It might seem like a no-brainer, given the speed with which Internet e-commerce has been accepted in the U.S. But there are other considerations.
For one thing, the American consumer is hooked on debt, with credit cards playing a major role. E-cash is, in a way, the opposite of a credit card. As with a debit card, you have to prepay for your purchases. Whether the domestic buyer is going to want to take a further step away from his or her "buy now, pay later" mentality remains to be seen.
Another stumbling block is philosophical. Privacy is a strongly held traditional value in the States, unlike Japan, and Americans are acutely aware that every day more and more of it is being stripped away. Many will see the rise of e-cash as just another way of letting the government/corporate complex know what you're doing and where you're doing it.
It isn't only drug dealers and burglars who benefit from the existence of cold, hard cash; it's everyone who appreciates the value of being able to conduct transactions in private, with no paper trail, when the need arises.
Could there be a way around this objection? The answer, satisfyingly, is yes. Anonymous e-cash is not just a possibility, it's here. And it's been here for a decade.
Microsoft, for instance, was issued a 1998 patent for technology that allows e-cash transactions to remain anonymous. I.e., it lets consumers spend their e-money without the bank or other repository being aware of the specifics, including user identity. Such is the general mistrust of Microsoft, however, that at the time Chris Oakes warned in Wired that "the development raised speculation about . . . whether the patent could be an effort to stymie the proliferation of anonymous cash." Oakes went on to write that "No patents in the area of anonymous micropayment are fundamental enough to make all businesses dependent upon one company's technology."
No Microsoft-type suspicions attached to DigiCash, founded in the early 1990s and the acknowledged pioneer in the field.
How DigiCash's system works is too technical to explain in depth, but it basically uses public-key cryptography (the public-private key pair system employed by PGP, for instance) to anonymize a transaction. In essence, it boils down to this: The user spends e-coins issued by his participating bank, which supplies them to him without knowing where they are going. The accepting merchant knows only that the bank stands behind the e-cash, without knowing the identity of the buyer. Each step in the process is fully encrypted and secure.
So how come we haven't heard more about this? Well, unfortunately for lovers of the concept, DigiCash filed for Chapter 11 in September of 1998, and no one else has stepped up. Hmmm, maybe Microsoft never intended to market their product after all.
This makes the future of DigiCash, or some similar form of anonymous electronic money, murky indeed. Even absent an MS conspiracy, it still requires an intricate arrangement among consumer, bank, and merchant that must be agreeable to all. But beyond that, there's the problem of government (isn't there always?). Washington loves the idea of a cashless society, provided it isn't one that comes with privacy attached; there's that misbegotten drug war to fight, y'know. Thus we can be pretty sure that anonymous e-cash transactions will be resisted by the feds, and perhaps prohibited by law.
Steven Levy envisioned a rosy future in Wired in 1994, one which will "shatter the Orwellian predictions of a Big Brother dystopia, replacing them with a world in which the ease of electronic transactions is combined with the elegant anonymity of paying in cash."
But will we ever get there? Right now, chances don't look especially good.
(c) Casey Research, Inc. 2005
He's big, he's bad. He sidles up to you on an otherwise deserted street and growls: "Your phone or your life."
This alternate take on the highwayman's traditional choice for his victim--life vs. money--has probably not yet been uttered, at least not in this country. But it may not be far off.
Japan, as it so often does with things electronic, has taken the lead in exploring the possibilities of "e-cash" as the preferred form of retail transaction. Increasingly, that brings into play an interface between the ubiquitous cell phone and the bits and bytes that pass for a medium of monetary exchange these days.
Modern life is, to a large extent, about convenience and saving time. Take dining out, for example. You eat, you chat with your companions, you conduct a business deal, whatever. Then, at the end, you have to settle your bill. This takes time. It has to be brought to you, then you have to wait in line at the register, then you have to wait some more while your credit card is processed, or submit your PIN for a debit card, then you have to sign.
Suppose you could just get up and walk out of the restaurant, pausing only long enough to wave your cell phone at the check-out desk. In a growing number of establishments, that's exactly what you can do in Japan today.
All you need is an e-cash card or a properly equipped cell phone. These smart cards and phones feature built-in antennas and integrated circuits that allow for the transmission and receipt of electronic signals. When you swipe one of them near a compatible scanner, e-money is deducted from your account--which can be replenished with paper money at thousands of automated docking stations around the country (reverse ATMs), or over the Internet with a credit card.
What began four years ago as a time-saving alternative payment method for high-speed rail commuters has rapidly morphed into a staple of Japanese life. An estimated 15 million people (projected to reach 40 million by 2008) now use e-cash for 15.8 million transactions per month, a 100% increase over 2004. E-cash is accepted by a wide range of retailers, including convenience stores, restaurants, department stores, newsstands, electronics dealers, furniture stores, and supermarkets. There are even vending machines where a wave of the hand will net you a Coke. Many shoppers are thus able to leave home with nothing in their pockets but their cell phone.
Time savings can be significant, especially in a crowded restaurant at lunch hour or in a supermarket. One study indicates that supermarket shoppers save a minimum of 10% of their time over those who pay with cash, and even more over those who pay by credit card.
In the confident words of Makoto Yamada, an executive at bitWallet, Inc., the country's largest virtual money service, "Japan is moving toward the cashless society."
Will the concept make its way across the Pacific? That's a good question. It might seem like a no-brainer, given the speed with which Internet e-commerce has been accepted in the U.S. But there are other considerations.
For one thing, the American consumer is hooked on debt, with credit cards playing a major role. E-cash is, in a way, the opposite of a credit card. As with a debit card, you have to prepay for your purchases. Whether the domestic buyer is going to want to take a further step away from his or her "buy now, pay later" mentality remains to be seen.
Another stumbling block is philosophical. Privacy is a strongly held traditional value in the States, unlike Japan, and Americans are acutely aware that every day more and more of it is being stripped away. Many will see the rise of e-cash as just another way of letting the government/corporate complex know what you're doing and where you're doing it.
It isn't only drug dealers and burglars who benefit from the existence of cold, hard cash; it's everyone who appreciates the value of being able to conduct transactions in private, with no paper trail, when the need arises.
Could there be a way around this objection? The answer, satisfyingly, is yes. Anonymous e-cash is not just a possibility, it's here. And it's been here for a decade.
Microsoft, for instance, was issued a 1998 patent for technology that allows e-cash transactions to remain anonymous. I.e., it lets consumers spend their e-money without the bank or other repository being aware of the specifics, including user identity. Such is the general mistrust of Microsoft, however, that at the time Chris Oakes warned in Wired that "the development raised speculation about . . . whether the patent could be an effort to stymie the proliferation of anonymous cash." Oakes went on to write that "No patents in the area of anonymous micropayment are fundamental enough to make all businesses dependent upon one company's technology."
No Microsoft-type suspicions attached to DigiCash, founded in the early 1990s and the acknowledged pioneer in the field.
How DigiCash's system works is too technical to explain in depth, but it basically uses public-key cryptography (the public-private key pair system employed by PGP, for instance) to anonymize a transaction. In essence, it boils down to this: The user spends e-coins issued by his participating bank, which supplies them to him without knowing where they are going. The accepting merchant knows only that the bank stands behind the e-cash, without knowing the identity of the buyer. Each step in the process is fully encrypted and secure.
So how come we haven't heard more about this? Well, unfortunately for lovers of the concept, DigiCash filed for Chapter 11 in September of 1998, and no one else has stepped up. Hmmm, maybe Microsoft never intended to market their product after all.
This makes the future of DigiCash, or some similar form of anonymous electronic money, murky indeed. Even absent an MS conspiracy, it still requires an intricate arrangement among consumer, bank, and merchant that must be agreeable to all. But beyond that, there's the problem of government (isn't there always?). Washington loves the idea of a cashless society, provided it isn't one that comes with privacy attached; there's that misbegotten drug war to fight, y'know. Thus we can be pretty sure that anonymous e-cash transactions will be resisted by the feds, and perhaps prohibited by law.
Steven Levy envisioned a rosy future in Wired in 1994, one which will "shatter the Orwellian predictions of a Big Brother dystopia, replacing them with a world in which the ease of electronic transactions is combined with the elegant anonymity of paying in cash."
But will we ever get there? Right now, chances don't look especially good.
Monday, Monday ver. 659.01
Working to clear through the detritus this morning - as I said, I need to have a manic day today.
Later, after an hours long fit of mania
Okay, I've cleared through a LOT today; have one loan done and in closing. About to work on the next one. Handed off some accounting work, worked on Fabulair some, about to do some more.
The next project is to put away all the sheet music that was sorted, and then tonight I get to INPUT the index information.
Got my Phaeton brochure in the mail today. Urk, did I overpay. At least I have one. The pdf file that I already had was far more informative.
Where's Chuck? I'm starving!
More and more stuff to do. Back to the grindstone. More tonight as I re-watch "Big Fish."
Later, after an hours long fit of mania
Okay, I've cleared through a LOT today; have one loan done and in closing. About to work on the next one. Handed off some accounting work, worked on Fabulair some, about to do some more.
The next project is to put away all the sheet music that was sorted, and then tonight I get to INPUT the index information.
Got my Phaeton brochure in the mail today. Urk, did I overpay. At least I have one. The pdf file that I already had was far more informative.
Where's Chuck? I'm starving!
More and more stuff to do. Back to the grindstone. More tonight as I re-watch "Big Fish."
Monday, January 02, 2006
Well - the Rules need to be applied
Who knows if Barbara is giving me good information? She herself may have something for Wolf, and be trying to steer me in a different direction.
But, I digress.
Barbara suggests that Wolf's assertion is that I made moves on him. Okay, I can NOT make moves faster than I can make them, and I certainly don't need drama with some guy who has baggage.
Found another house - an interesting part of town, east of downtown off of I-10. It's VERY pretty, the bedrooms are rather small, and I haven't seen a floorplan yet. It's pretty inexpensive, but the neighborhood could be less than desireable. I'm going to talk to my lender's rep and have a look at it, I think.
I love this apartment, and I love this neighborhood, but .. interesting possibilities.
Okay, time to get the lead out and crawl into bed.
But, I digress.
Barbara suggests that Wolf's assertion is that I made moves on him. Okay, I can NOT make moves faster than I can make them, and I certainly don't need drama with some guy who has baggage.
Found another house - an interesting part of town, east of downtown off of I-10. It's VERY pretty, the bedrooms are rather small, and I haven't seen a floorplan yet. It's pretty inexpensive, but the neighborhood could be less than desireable. I'm going to talk to my lender's rep and have a look at it, I think.
I love this apartment, and I love this neighborhood, but .. interesting possibilities.
Okay, time to get the lead out and crawl into bed.
Happy New-ish Year
Ah, another distraction. At the New Year's Eve party, I met this very nice and engaging young man (well, thirty) who seemed quite interested in continuing our new association. I met him out last night (with Barbara, who was the guilty party for introducing us,) and we had quite a lot of fun - frisky conversation was had, followed by some public macking, and then - he pulled completely away in his conversation and body language.
Men are so frustrating. Now, he's back to being frisky and interested in talking and getting together.
I've been trying to burn a DVD all day, and it's not working - the program keeps shutting down. Frustrating.
Walked to Barnaby's for lunch, and spotted a townhouse that's a HUD foreclosure. I inquired about it, and got a five word reply from the realtor "that property is under contract."
Biotch.
I have to call my lender friend tomorrow and ask about FHA lending standards. I had forgotten that HUD had pushed up the loan limit to something workable in the Midtown area. There is a metal townhouse on Gray that is about that same price. Still and all, I love having the meeting room here at the apartment to meet clients, without having to have them in my apartment. So, that's a benefit that saves me from having to have office space.
Urgh.
Meeting Janice tonight at Adobe - the last time we did that, I had Nick in tow. Tonight, it will be just she and I. Then, home to watch "Big Fish," which I need to send back tomorrow.
I also have to get ready for the Wednesday board meeting, urg. This lack of motivation is wiping me out. I need a manic day tomorrow. And, I need NOT to have the distraction of a new man's antics. Even though he's all corn fed and frisky.
Barney is starting to ping-pong around in the kitchen, signaling that he's detected it's time for their walk.
I've accomplished some small things, that make things more pleasant - hanging the wireless router up on the wall to generate more signal strength, moving the DSL modem away from the computer desk to improve fidelity and reduce line noise, filing, shredding, address updates, organization. Tomorrow, I have no appointments or commitments; hopefully, that will create the space to knock out a ton of work.
Men are so frustrating. Now, he's back to being frisky and interested in talking and getting together.
I've been trying to burn a DVD all day, and it's not working - the program keeps shutting down. Frustrating.
Walked to Barnaby's for lunch, and spotted a townhouse that's a HUD foreclosure. I inquired about it, and got a five word reply from the realtor "that property is under contract."
Biotch.
I have to call my lender friend tomorrow and ask about FHA lending standards. I had forgotten that HUD had pushed up the loan limit to something workable in the Midtown area. There is a metal townhouse on Gray that is about that same price. Still and all, I love having the meeting room here at the apartment to meet clients, without having to have them in my apartment. So, that's a benefit that saves me from having to have office space.
Urgh.
Meeting Janice tonight at Adobe - the last time we did that, I had Nick in tow. Tonight, it will be just she and I. Then, home to watch "Big Fish," which I need to send back tomorrow.
I also have to get ready for the Wednesday board meeting, urg. This lack of motivation is wiping me out. I need a manic day tomorrow. And, I need NOT to have the distraction of a new man's antics. Even though he's all corn fed and frisky.
Barney is starting to ping-pong around in the kitchen, signaling that he's detected it's time for their walk.
I've accomplished some small things, that make things more pleasant - hanging the wireless router up on the wall to generate more signal strength, moving the DSL modem away from the computer desk to improve fidelity and reduce line noise, filing, shredding, address updates, organization. Tomorrow, I have no appointments or commitments; hopefully, that will create the space to knock out a ton of work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)