Tweening Around the Tworld!

It is very easy go all bi-modal on issues: left v. right, libertarian v. authoritarian, my religion v. yours and everyone else’s religion, Vorlons v. Shadows.

These are all analysis errors pushed through narrow rhetorical “pipes” and distribution “tubes”. There is too much signal lost in this process and one cannot make useful decisions depending on these analyses. Cue the Einstein quote about simplicity…

For example, my outsiders view of evangelical Christians is that there is some realization of this problem. The “What Would Jesus Doers” or Gospelists (my neologism) have figured out that there are other issues besides the “Pro-life” anti-abortion issue. Pro-life has been used as a narrow label for a very complex set of values and this actually, IMO, precluded Pro-lifers from accomplishing their anti-abortion or most any other mission. Some have figured out that they allowed themselves to be suckered for their vote. Their fringe view was never going to be approved by freely elected politicians. (I understand that 70% of the population supports first trimester abortion rights.) They are growing into a broader agenda. And a new set of leaders are emerging from this process. They are actually hearing the criticism, IMO, that if you’re Pro-life, then you’re pro- all life. And the “monolithic” evangelical movement appears to be fracturing and evolving. I think this is helpful. There are many common values I share with Gospelists. As they relax their grip on this narrow, restrictive label, there is more we can accomplish together.

Yes, bi-modal argumentation is “easier”. There is a false view, frequently expressed elsewhere, that certain legal decisions can be categorized simply. That a legal decision is somehow liberal or conservative. We all know this is simply not the case; the law is just too analog. (Yes, there is the claim that so many small quanta/states of the legal system appear to be analog while still being “digital”. Because the constituent particles of the law, legal terms and definitions, are subject to human interpretation by judges, I contend that there is no way effectively to characterize the law as quantized around a bi-modal distribution upon any axis of interest.)

We have seen this in almost every debate venue. Someone uses a simple mischaracterization of their opponents position in a short, not so pithy sound bite. They somehow think that simple labels from a simplistic categorization can somehow be used to organize a debate about complex issues. They shortchange themselves, as the Pro-life community has done, by embracing ineffective simplicity.

I’m glad we’re all hard to label. I’m also glad that that Biden, McCain, Obama and, even, Palin are also hard to label. (OK, maybe Palin isn’t that hard to label but let’s leave it at that…

Labels substitute for respect for your colleagues and these serious issues. They are framing devices about building popular electoral advantage and not debating policy. That’s why I really liked it when Obama would call this stuff out as part of the “silly season” in the election. I would hope that we, as engineers, would try to reject simplistic labels and, especially, labeling people. They are not helpful.

Andrew

P.S. For the record, if there must be labels, here is how I would label myself:

Fiscally Sustainable (Pro- “Pay-Go”, Infrastructure Development Projects [pork-lite], require ROI calculations.)

Social Foundationist (Pro- Rule of Law, Social Security, Universal Healthcare)

Rational Policy Wonk (While the process is anything but rational, rationality does help policy be effective.)

National Security Bear (Not a hawk or an eagle but it scares the crap out of Colbert.) Also, a bear stays home and competing with the Russians in almost everything feels “natural”.

Technological Innovationist (All economic progress devolves from technological innovation and invention.)

Peak-monger (The 4 peaks of the apopcalypse: Peak Population, Peak Temperature, Peak Water and Peak Oil.)

As of November 07, 2008, I don’t see any rocks or pebbles.

This man, President-elect Obama, touched something in me.

He speaks to a deep need in me for social relevance and responsibility. I hope he touches something in you.

“The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.”

. . .

“And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.”

– President-elect Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

Yes! We! Can!

Top Row (L to R): Marc Gold, Mark Moeckel, Terry Harris, Jeb Boyt, Tom Myer
Bottom Row (L to R): Darren Keefe, Jackie O’Keefe, Nada Lulic, Hope Doty

Sarah Eckhardt has agreed to participate in our first Geek Salon. I will invite technologists when we have an agenda. Sarah has left it up to me to pick a theme. Here are some candidates:

• Criteria for choosing electronic voting machines.
• Criteria for supporting telecommuting.
• Criteria for choosing alternative energy technologies.
• Criteria for growing the technology community in Central Texas.

I’ll be calling you for both your opinion and whether you’ll attend a Salon.

Opera Goers Tailgate Too!
But have cooler cars.
The Santa Fe Opera,
August 12, 2008,
Adrianna Mater.

Breakfast

The old blind dog
with the bad gall bladder
and the diabetes and stones,
who is losing his hearing
and his teeth
thunks the bone
of his tail on the linoluem,
reminding me not to forget him,
reminding me he still
would like the last sweet taste
of my oatmeal and milk,
reminding me that hope
should be the last thing
to go

-Nancy R Wrocklage

Thanks to Cheryl Silver for bringing this poem to our neighborhood’s attention.

More pieces are getting installed. The mid-line of the HDTV is at my eye level. The vertical distance between the camera and the eye mid-line is a problem. To look directly at the person, you need to look at the camera. It feels very unnatural to be looking up while your peer is looking at your throat. Though she is looking at the camera too. Of course, if you look at the screen you aren’t meeting the eye of your peer. I once tried to file a patent on a screen with a hole drilled in the middle to solve this problem. But AT&T already held patents in this area.

Isn’t the Wii cute in its little cubby?

My stand-up desk is just about done. (It only needs pulls for the drawers.) The desktop is 42 inches off of the floor. A normal desk is 30 inches high.

I’m involved with a research project in advanced web media integration and user interface experimentation. A conversation station is used for a one on one video conference. It is intended to be the proverbial water cooler of the remote/home worker.

The custom mount for the high definition video camera is being fabricated. It will be centered above the screen. The screen is on an articulated mount. By the way, that is a Wii light bar mounted on the top of the screen. While I do use it to play games, the Wiimote is also one of the most interesting UI input devices developed in a long time. It is only rivaled by the iPhone and its accelerometers.

My Floating Credenza has arrived!

(Now I have to get stuff up off of the floor.)