text:
Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation
Every so often, a piece thinker trips onto the global stage and says something like: "Sure, people say that they're unhappy, and they say that it's the economy, but GDP is steadily growing and a lot of those people are rich. So they're wrong." Then Donald Trump gets elected or some country 'exits, and the slightly clammier thinker regurgitates their argument, but this time they punctuate it with: "You dicks."
More nuanced thinkers add a few parentheticals ("2008", "racism", "coastal gains and middle drains", etc.) but they retain the basic structure.
It's important to understand something: They're not wrong. They're just insane.
The same thing happens on the left, this isn't split across the French National Assembly. It's something more like "current system" vs. "new/old one", which does sound like "conservative" vs. "other", but doesn't match any such party we have.
Take Occupy. No, first, take this graph:
Ok. The left is quick to point out inequality, or the fact that poverty still exists. Here's the counter: though inequality might be a problem, it's not clear that it's the problem. Our society has made everyone richer by [expression for large multiplier here]. Boats and tides, something about rising-but-not-like-Bane-rising, etc. Man's root state, after all, is not wealth but poverty. If we started with very little, and then capitalism made us all wealthier, is it really the devil if, while doing that, a few got wealthier than others?
This is a hard argument to counter, and one has to question the instinct to counter it. That graph and the common narratives – mass dissatisfaction, endemic poverty, social malcontent – do not work together. And yet we do observe such things – people are really angry. There's something strange about telling a very angry person that they aren't, in fact, a very angry person. The real problem is reconciling that anger with an economic motivation. "What if they're just wrong?" Fine, phrase it this way: what's the motivation for being angry then? It means the same thing with less presumptions.
So we have: Trump, Brexit, and Occupy. All of those threatened the status quo, all of them claimed economic reasons (more or less), and all of them had no way to deal with the graph above.
Here's how one economist puts his colleagues' position contra the critiques:
Nothing in the nature of a sudden deterioration of standards, according to these writers, ever overwhelmed the common people. They were, on average, substantially better off after than before […] and, as to numbers, nobody can deny their rapid increase. By the accepted yardsticks of economic welfare – real wages and population figures – the Inferno [of capitalism], they maintained, never existed; the working classes, far from being exploited, were economically the gainers and to argue the need for social protection against a system that benefited all was obviously impossible.
Critics of liberal capitalism were baffled.
Except that that isn't about our time. The brackets are, respectively, "…before the introduction of the factory system", and "the Inferno of early capitalism". The description is of the Industrial Revolution and its contemporaneous debates. The author is Karl Polanyi, writing a history of said debates.
I really wanted that to be more of a gotcha, but Polanyi is just such a fucking dated writer. So, yes, finally: that's from 1944.
"Wait, the Industrial Revolution? The one with all the child labor and missing limbs and -" Yes, that one. "But -"
Whatever you want to say about capitalism, the Industrial Revolution was a terrible time to be poor. Anecdotally, I've yet to meet a single person who dismisses Marx without qualification (that isn't a contest, comment section), and the qualification is always, always, "Well, yes, that made sense if you lived in England then. But today it's wrong." I'm talking both progressives and conservatives. This isn't the time to get into Marx, I merely mention that to make a point: everyone knows that being poor during the Industrial Revolution was atrocious. But they don't all know that it was relatively lucrative.
I should probably say this quickly: I'm not comparing the modern Western world at all to the people of Industrial Britain. The point is simply that these kinds of debates aren't new. People have been pointing to graphs to falsify complaints for forever.
The quoted line comes about 150 pages into The Great Transformation. About 100 of those pages detail the near-constant immiseration and degradation of (what would become) the British working class. From all ends of that island they were drawn into cities, or factory towns, and, piece-by-piece, reduced. "Reduced how?" Simply reduced. Diminished in every way one can imagine, qualification is unnecessary.
So the quotation reads like a punch to the gut, but you recover. After all, he's been railing against (classical) liberals, and this must just be another one of their lies that he's about to explode. But it isn't. The economists are right. Wages went up. Everything went up (except people – consider the height graph foreshadowing).
The horrors also happened, of course. That part isn't a lie.
Polanyi calls the tendency to judge the world solely financially the economic prejudice. One can intuitively understand that people can get richer and have disaster befall them, but that isn't quite what Polanyi means. He means three things:
1) "Wealth" is defined only by market value – wages, property, etc. This automatically removes any of the blurrier forms that exist in traditional societies, whether those are usufruct land, social ties, etc. Since the "traditional" forms are much more common pre-capitalism, their loss is not calculable. They aren't admitted into the debate.
2) Over time "quality of life" starts becoming an essentially economic concern, especially when pursuing policy. If by (1) "economics" no longer included traditional forms of sustenance, then through (2) the realm of "politics" also stops asking about those more "social" things. I distinguish this from (1) largely because it's at least possible to imagine a society that adheres to (1) but not to (2).
3) Causation gets restricted and confused as a result of this. If "economy" is sharply differentiated from "culture" via (1), and via (2) becomes the association with politics, then "why such and such happened" only admits of certain explanations. A hypothetical politician: "People are getting richer", via (1), "so there can't be economic complaints. The complaints must be over x." The political debate then becomes "Whatever x is", and it might be culture, or "loose morals", or greed, or…. Or, now an anti-capitalist side: "The people are crushed by poverty, so the problem must be low wages, or landlords, or…., again via (1), "Therefore there must be something directly in the market system itself causing that." And then the mad scramble to determining what economic structure is making this happen surreptitiously. By (2), the solution must also be phrased in a certain, restricted way.
All of this should remind you of James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State, and if you read that that you can probably guess your way reasonably close to the problem. Also like Scott, there's nothing necessarily devious about this. In Polanyi there actually are devious characters who conspire to keep wages low so that there's constant access to labor, but, ironically, those were the people who failed. Wages kept going up despite their plans, and the people got poor in ways they didn't intend. Either way, the economic prejudice is not malicious, but it might be unavoidable. There's no way to quantify "social relations", at least not in a way the state understands, whereas wages and property really can be quantified. Moreover, those are the only things that a state has direct control over (somewhat, in theory, anyway), so if you wanted to help the poor then that's exactly the kind of information you'd need. It's the only part that "touches" the (1) restricted market, so it's natural to assume that it's the part that needs fixing.
If there is any malice, it's a kind of indifference to the social arrangements that existed beforehand. The state theoretically could have taken the time to learn the local structures, but there was way less motivation to do that than to get fabulously rich and powerful.
That's out of the way now. The economic prejudice is a crucial aspect of GT, but if it were the point of the book, then I wouldn't really be writing this. It wouldn't be differentiated enough from Seeing Like a State to make a point.
Scott's story has no response. The state crushes the populace and then… bummer, I guess. If Seeing Like a State were a film, it would be immensely disheartening. The local populace – the Good Guys! – never gets a chance to rebel, to reestablish metic control. That might be a good thing. Despite our preference for the underdog, we forget what happens when the underdog becomes an [overdog?]. These reviews are moving backwards chronologically, and Polanyi is writing at a time during which some of those crushed, metis-loving people actually get the state under their grasp. Spoiler: quite a few wind up becoming the villains of Seeing Like a State.
The Great Transformation is not really about the evils of early capitalism, in other words. It's about how those perpetuate in the reaction to them.
Seeing Like a State is just vague enough that pretty much everyone can pattern-match their preferred policies onto it. I mean, I know I do.
Polanyi is not that vague. Or he is, but in the opposite direction (hated, I mean). The right calls him a discredited communist, and the left calls him an out-and-out fascist. People in the center just tend to get weirdly quiet and kind of sad. Some of those claims are moral, many are political (even if he doesn't conflate the USSR with Nazi Germany, the fact that he assigns them to the same root cause is bad enough), and others are… well, I'm not sure. There are a lot.
His theory is highly contentious, and I can guarantee you that writing this I'm going to get someone with much more economic knowledge blasting me with papers as to why [such and such] is totally wrong, or the history of [thing] was bad. (Side note, but if you actually can do that, I'd appreciate it. Good counterarguments are desirable, etc.).
I'm hedging super hard here, so I may as well keep doing that: I suspect his history is flawed, he lacks any sort of solution, and I know that the anthropological work that informs the first section is outdated. He's also kind of a bad writer. I also know that none of that changes the argument.
Polanyi's stance is odd, and you can see it in discussions over whether he's "right" or "wrong". Much of the debate centers on his value as an economic historian. This makes sense – The Great Transformation is, theoretically, about the creation of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. The debate then rages over his analysis, whether there are historical factors, whether the economy grew in the way he thought it did, etc. But allow me to sound like a complete idiot for a moment and ask a very basic question: What does Polanyi think "capitalism" is? And, along with that, what does he take a "market" to be? After all, if we're all talking about different things, then I'm not sure how anyone can be right or wrong.
Polanyi dislikes using the word "capitalism" to describe either the dreams of liberal (classic sense) economists or the economic process of early Industrial Britain. He refers to it as a "self-regulating market" or a "market society" (normally with a derisive adjective attached), and I don't think that's merely a semantic distinction.
Ultimately, that is why the control of the economic system by the market is of overwhelming consequence to the whole organization of society: it means no less than the running of society as an adjunct to the market. Instead of the economy being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system. The vital importance of the economic factor to the existence of society precludes any other result. (60)
In other words, separating "society" from "market" is a non sequitur. There's always been a market, but it was mediated through extraneous social factors. This still sounds like Scott from a particular lens, and I tried to get at what that looked like in the example of Christianity (section VI). From Scott, I'll call this economic metis, a kind of pre-state craft that groups use to socially organize themselves.
Here's a more general example that Polanyi gives a few pages before:
The outstanding discovery of recent historical and anthropological work is that man's economy, as a rule, is submerged in his social relationships. He does not act so as to safeguard his individual interest in the possession of material goods; he acts so as to safeguard his social standing, his social claims, his social assets. He values material goods only insofar as they serve this end. […] These interests will be very different in a small hunting or fishing community from those in a vast despotic society, but in either case the economic system will be run on non-economic motives.
The explanation, in terms of survival, is simple. Take the case of a tribal society. The individual's economic interest is rarely paramount, for the community keeps all its members from starving unless it is itself borne down by catastrophe, in which case interests are again threatened collectively, not individually. The maintenance of social ties, on the other hand, is crucial. (48)
There will be a longer addendum arguing for Polanyi, but I don't think that what he's saying here is even controversial. We absolutely see status (power) overruling pure "wealth" in a ridiculous amount of societies (my first thought was the Roman patronage system, but then it would be). What you think that's from is a totally different matter.
Polanyi isn't saying that pre-capitalist societies had no "market motivation" or were unaware of the profit mentality. That wouldn't even make sense with his argument. For pre-capitalist societies to have developed social arrangements around and about market motivations there has to be some kind of natural market motive. Markets are there, but "culture" in a very broad sense also is. It protects and shields the societies from market failures, largely due to kinship and social relations. When social mechanisms fail, decay, or are destroyed, we absolutely would expect to see certain forms of capitalism arising.
Destroy is the key word there, because Polanyi goes further than simple coexistence of market and society, or than their interrelation. You can see it implied even in the quote above: the social relationships (whatever form they are) are not always simply media for the market. They're also ways of containing it. Were an individual in his tribal society to begin hoarding all the wealth, it would pose a severe threat to the other members of society as well as to the culture as a whole. Hence, the social order becomes more important and overrules the wealth.
That "preservation and control" is going to become critical.
I haven't read any of Polanyi's other books, but I've heard they're bad. Oh well. I expect that, in fact – they're mostly economic history of ancient societies, now all dated by 50 or so years. The primary criticism I've read of Polanyi using those books is that he thinks the "capitalist view" is entirely modern, and that no earlier society thought that way. That's historically wrong, sure, but it's also wrong by Polanyi's own work for all the reasons stated above.
What Polanyi does think changed is emphasis. That's why he calls it the "self-regulating market" or the "market society" rather than capitalism – the economic prejudice is part of that, not simply "profit motive". The market society shifts focus, and builds itself out of a market, is controlled by it, rather than functioning along with it (i.e. controlling it).
As for "self-regulating" and its difference from "capitalism": If "private capital" is taken to be the bedrock of capitalism, then capitalism has always existed – look at bronze age trade routes in the eastern Mediterranean and try to pretend that capital is recent. The difference is that those traders all operated under the charter and supervision of emperors and, hence, the larger social arrangement. Our relationship to the market, on the other hand, is here: "Instead of the economy being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system." The metic control over societies is gone, and instead of social structures guiding the market, the market guides our social structures. Also: itself, and so the market is now "self-regulating".
Markets control commodities, but social relations are (obviously) between people. Hence, to create a market society, you have to get rid of or at least ignore those social relations. To put it in more economic language that everyone will understand: without a market for labor and land, there is no capitalism. Wages have to be in tune with the market for it to function, and land has to be allocated on market bases for the same reason.
The commons system (and "waste") was a prime example of traditional practices that subordinated part of a market to social relations. It ensured some kind of safety net that ran parallel to the market, but was built on the trappings of a remaining social system (in this case, feudalism, otherwise absent in Britain via black plague). These were relegated to market behavior through the Enclosure Acts. The loss of this made peasant life much more perilous, and yet (economic prejudice) all monetary effects were positive. Price of food on the market was lower, and lands that were previously commons became more productive. Still, the amount of truly penurious workers in England grew – there was no longer a social net to shield them from market calamities, and now there was no good way to even talk about what had happened. After all, why should they be poor when everything is cheaper?
As Polanyi puts it:
We recall our parallel between the ravages of the enclosures in English History and the social catastrophe of the Industrial Revolution. Improvements, we said, are, as a rule, bought at the price of social dislocation.
But that shift was among the earliest, and the only people who really fought against it were conservative aristocrats (for obvious reasons).
It's only in 1834, with the birth of a labor market through the removal of political protections, that Polanyi thinks a market society really came into being.
Polanyi views economic history as a "double movement". The first movement is in the direction of economic liberalism. The second is social protections. This isn't unique to him – he's responding to economists from all across the political spectrum that notice the same pattern. Many of them (on the liberal side) view those protections as attacks on the free market, and some of those apparently thought that there was something like an organized conspiracy. I have no idea whether that's a strawman or not, but either way: there was no conspiracy, there were disparate groups all enacting regulations organically. In fact, there seems to have been much more conspiring to turn Britain into a market society.
There's a certain view of the "free market" as the natural state of society. Governments only regulate parts of that. This is kind of a straw man libertarian, because even the libertarians I know recognize that it's an oversimplification. No matter – give me the scarecrow. In Polanyi's scheme, governments create the conditions of the "free market", because "free market" really means self-regulating market. They create that by dissolving all of the social relations that previously had regulated it. Regulation, confusingly, comes first.
Most of those "regulations" aren't obvious, because most of those "regulations" are non-contractual social ties, or highly specific metic arrangements. But they exist, and they have power, and people go fucking crazy when they disappear. Polanyi:
Obscure as the beginnings of local markets are, this much can be asserted: that from the start this institution was surrounded by a number of safeguards designed to protect the prevailing economic organization of society from interference on the part of market practices. The peace of the market was secured at the price of rituals and ceremonies which restricted its scope while ensuring its ability to function within the given narrow limits. (65)
In other words: anti-capitalists have a myth about "markets" suddenly coming into existence, somehow against human nature. Capitalists have a myth about self-regulating markets as the totally natural state of things. Both of these are wrong and bad. Stronger: both of these are based on an economic prejudice that sees "politics" and "society" as somehow cordoned off from the economy.
But that connection, the obvious society-market-person connection, gives us this:
Social history in the nineteenth century was thus the result of a double movement: the extension of the market organization in respect to genuine commodities was accompanied by its restriction in respect to fictitious ones. (79)
Those "fictitious ones" are land, labor, and money. The fiction is that land, labor, and money are simply "other commodities" on the market. They aren't – those are exactly the objects of social protection (well, money is more political, but that would get things too long and confused). Moreover: no one will treat them as such when they're in peril.
Hence, the real fiction is that these will behave like other commodities on the market. Widgets don't fight back when their price drops. But labor, if wages fall or unemployment abounds, will. Basing your entire society around the illusion that it will behave like everything else is ridiculous.
Just like land, there are pre-existing social arrangements around labor. People don't start out somehow "independent", ready for the market. You're born into a society with familial and political and religious and social ties. In Polanyi's scheme, these community protections run around the market, or subsume market behavior into a much deeper system. Given that, you know, "social" means people, a competitive labor market can't really exist while that community exists. In many ways, those ties are there precisely to prevent labor markets. Hence, you liquidate it. Polanyi:
To separate labor from other activities of life and try to subject it to the laws of the market was to annihilate all organic forms of existence and to replace them by a different type of organization, and atomistic and individualistic one.
Such a scheme of destruction was best served by the application of the principle of the freedom of contract. In practice, this meant that the noncontractual organizations of kinship, neighborhood, profession, and creed were to be liquidated since they claimed the allegiance of the individual and thus restrained his freedom. To represent this principle as one of noninterference, as economic liberals were wont to do, was merely the expression of an ingrained prejudice in favor of a definite kind of interference, namely, such as would destroy the non-contractual relations between individuals and prevent their spontaneous reformation.
In terms of the ninteenth century, Polanyi is really thinking about removal of the commons, of parish laws for the poor, and the massive social movements that uprooted families. Hence, people who had previously lived with strong social ties were suddenly left barren of them.
Again, none of this is moral or even pre-planned. Anything from price fluctuation to industrial relocation can do that. And this is (probably) where Polanyi sounds most like Scott. Ignore how strong that language is, focus on what underlies it. Social regulation of markets is essentially defensive. When you remove that defense mechanism (as one must), people get exposed to vicissitudes of the market. And when one of those goes very bad, people react. Hence the double movement: freer market relations, but aggressive reactions in favor of protecting labor, land, and money.
There's also this: Humans are social animals [citation needed], and we really don't like being removed from other people we like. We also really hate when the social laws around us are changed to facilitate that. The argument pro capitalism is efficiency and wealth. That wealth is, theoretically, to give people the lives they want. But what if the lives that people really want have much more to do with social ties than they do with economic ties? And, indeed, that the process of creating a labor market destroys precisely those. I'm not going to get into that [psychological?] argument now, but it's going to become important in later posts.
You might expect Polanyi to be very in favor of labor's reaction. That is to say: a standard leftist argument against the market, social protection is great, etc. He's… well, he's not very hopeful that things will get better.
Those "fictitious commodities" are essential for the market, and social protections are going to severely damage both the economy and themselves. Polanyi pretty much agrees with the "economic liberal" analysis here (is that ironic? I have no idea).
I've ignored the vast majority of the "historical" section of the book, and one might get the view that it's all about capitalism destroying the poor. That happens sometimes, but almost all of the worst depredations come from these weird social proto-saftey-net laws that were meant to combat the effects of the self-regulating market. Above all, the book attacks the Speenhamland system of poor relief for decomposing the poor's communities (even while it recognizes the coldness of Speenhamland's removal). I think a big part of the problem is that the earlier social nets are metic and social, whereas the new ones are all blinded by the economic prejudice, but that's mostly a guess. In any event, the social protections set up to combat self-regulation of the market only make things worse.
That's bad for labor, of course. It's also terrible for the economy. That leads to economic catastrophe, which would theoretically be "fine" I guess, except that if a society has made the transition to "market society" then the economy is its entire bedrock.
The double movement, then, threatens to destroy all of society. It might be a slow burn, but it's there. And, of course, it can't be stopped: social protections exist, market gets rid of them, more go up except they're worse, market gets rid of them, repeat forever. Finally a catastrophe happens (for Polanyi, the Great Depression) that's the result of everything that came before it, and then the society crumbles. That somewhat sounds like a very surface reading of Marx, except for Marx this was all great. Contradictions in capitalism lead to a revolution and the proletariat move us forward into [something nice].
But Marx wasn't alive when Polanyi was. In Polanyi's time, contradictions contradicted, and we received fascism and Stalinism.
"Wait, so – "
Polanyi pretty much blames everyone, ever, for everything. I think that's fair. Also: unhelpful.
I think this is the point where I'm supposed to talk about Polanyi's solutions. Yeah, about that. He doesn't really have any.
He also thinks the New Deal was a response, and he's relatively positive about it. But not only is it unclear if that's enough, it's not even clear if those protections can do what they're supposed to. A tremendous part of the problem is not simply economic malcontent, but the fact that people really hate social dislocation. Economic nets help, in the sense that people have to move around less and can develop stronger social ties, but it's not really clear to me that we've seen the development of "social economies" in the US. I'm pretty sure that we've actually seen the opposite, which is to say: total disintegration of traditional societal protections.
That's probably why Polanyi thinks that fascism was the strongest reaction, as in: well timed and superficially reacting in the right way. It offered the social thing. It also neuters the double movement by removing democracy and killing all ideological opponents. So those are upsides, I guess. The downside is that it's fascism. Another downside: even if, for some reason, you were really into fascism morally, then it still economically annihilates itself. And again, to underline this: Polanyi's argument against fascism is the same argument you or I would have. It's fascism. (This is the reason leftists call him a fascist, I think, but he's pretty damn clear that it's a terrible idea.)
So Polanyi can't really help us with the solution aspect. Failing that, I guess I could offer some of my own. Yeah, about that.
Here's the quote from my title. Think about it forever:
M'Farlane was not, therefore, venturing an unusual view when he expressed his belief that, as England had now approached the meridian of her greatness, "the number of poor will continue to increase." (108)
Where does this leave us?
James C. Scott is all about the way states oversimplify traditional societies and uproot them in the name of "progress". He focuses on the places where that progress fails, but it can sometimes have good effects even while wrecking traditional societies. For Polanyi, the self-regulating market (or free market) is a prime example of state simplification. It may get channeled through private companies, but there always has to be some sort of political struggle that maintains a free market against traditional markets. Scott has been adopted by a lot of libertarians, but he's wary himself of the free market. He has to be using Polanyi for that. That explains Scott, but it's not really an argument for what Polanyi does for us now.
I started by mocking a certain view of people and GDP. It's probably clear why I did now, even if that was somewhat in bad faith. Polanyi explains why a whole lot of people reject simplistic economic explanations. "America is already doing great, here's the growth rate" is not helpful. That's not even what people are talking about. Polanyi's real focus is on social dislocation, which is economic but is not necessarily explicable through traditional economic language. Scott helps to show all the ways that communities fail to explain their woes, and Polanyi just adds to that. But Polanyi also offers at least some way to quantify that problem. He lets us move forward and analyze, even if we haven't traditionally emphasized that research. No, I'm not going to dump a bunch of studies on [the world] right now, this thing was long enough, but it helps to establish a stance.
It helps to explain those otherwise baffling voting patterns. There was a lot of debate last election over rich voters arguing for protectionist platforms that were against their economic interest. But those platforms were in the interest of the poor members of their community, and sure enough, that's how the rich tended to vote. Homo economicus can't really explain that, but if people vote for social protections of their tribe or [whatever], rather than strict economic arrangements, then it makes perfect sense. I guess another response is "people are foolish" or "cultural concerns", but those don't actually explain anything.
I'm going to say "neoliberal" here, don't flay me: a stupendous amount of the argument against neoliberalism is that privatization comes at the expense of democracy. a) that's fair, but b) I'm not sure those words contextually make sense or are the ones you should be using. I think what's really going on is an argument over self-regulating markets, and the ways that society needs forms of regulation that are social. But, of course, that doesn't really necessitate anything "democratic".
Polanyi was a socialist (whatever he meant by that, unexplained), so it's easy to see him saying that "social protection" was always a good thing. That's wrong. Not only do the political solutions fail (i.e. the double movement), the original social protections aren't things that I really want. Commons sound nice, sure, but the rest aren't exactly modern desiderata: feudalism, strict patriarchy, kinship in the sense of kinship-that-causes-blood-feuds, religious fanaticism. (This also explains why so many early anti-capitalist movements were from conservatives.) But we also know that market solutions are bound to make everything worse.
That leaves us in a deadlock. No matter your feelings on market societies, I don't really see a way to institute them without there being the kind of equal-but-opposite reaction that Polanyi's talking about. Trying to plan around that, assuming that people won't react to market vicissitudes, is foolish. Hell, assuming that they won't react negatively to the best of all market societies is foolish, given that creating that requires a certain amount of social dislocation no matter what. As a side note, that does help explain why so many libertarians went all-in for Pinochet recently (as well as in the past, but w/e). But even if you think that's a good idea (I don't), Pinochet himself was toppled by mass social discontent. So… I dunno, "plug in [enlightened ruler] there and it'll be fine" seems like a pretend argument to me.
All of this sounds bad for all sides, I know. So I'm going to make it worse. Most of the arguments here are material, as in "social dislocation has material problems". But Polanyi's real concern is much more psychological ("spiritual", depending on your persuasion). Namely: human beings want much richer social lives than they can maintain under strict market conditions, and much of the reaction against market societies comes from that. Even if you can control the initial response, the absence of whatever that social void is turns people towards much more frightening things than "welfare" or [whatever]. (Also: maybe that's a serious problem with market societies, and not merely a problem as in "revolutions happen we should avoid those". We'll build to that later.)
"How is that worse?" Well, the next book in this series is called The True Believer, and it's about mass movements and extremism. Polanyi pushes us towards that understanding, but you really need Hoffer to get at why fascism became fascism, or Stalinism became Stalinism, or Wahhabism becomes Wahhabism.
top image from Terrence Malick's Days of Heaven
Part of the Uruk Series


text:
I'm putting off doing important stuff so here's a procrastination blog.
These are things that retail and other vendors do that I find irritating:
1.) Charge me more money for clothing because I am tall. This makes no sense at all. I'm 5'9″ tall, which is 5 inches over the limit for the average American female. It's not like I could help being tall. I just grew like Topsy well into my 20's. (2 inches between 23 and 27, go figure). So, it's really irritating to go to a site like Eddie Bauer and see that every item for a tall person is $10-20 more expensive. At the risk of pissing off a lot of people who read this blog, I find it really unfair that a size 14 doesn't have to pay one cent more than a size 6. Most people can lose weight with diet and exercise. But I can't lose inches in height without surgery. You'd *think* that if they are going to add more fabric in the middle of the garment without extra cost that they could add a few inches in length without extra cost but for some mysterious, inexplicable reason, this isn't so. Petites? Noooo problem. They have their own section, also not more expensive. But even if you can't find exactly what you want if you're minute, there is more than enough fabric to cut off or take in.
So, to recap, you can be average, plump or tiny but women are not allowed to be tall without penalty. And 5'9″ isn't extraordinarily tall. It's not like I'm playing professional basketball or beach volleyball. I'm not 6 ft tall. My height is model size, not amazon size, not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just not that unusual anymore. There are a lot of us around these days. The average height might be 5'4.5″ but it's not like there isn't a huge gaussian distribution in America where there might not be in a place like Japan.
I've talked to various clothing company representatives about why the cost differentiation penalizes the tall and not the wide or itsy-bitsy and I've never gotten a satisfactory answer that doesn't sound like a flimsy excuse covering for a money making opportunity. So, basically, tall women are screwed.
It's bad enough that there isn't the same size gradations in women's clothing as there are in men's clothing. You don't get a variation in sleeve length or in-seams or anything like that in any women's clothing stores. And I do understand that men who are really tall have to go to special stores and pay a premium. But there aren't any tall stores for women and what is offered in tall sizes is limited and usually dowdy. Compared to what the average height woman can choose from, the tall woman's choices are usually more limited items without the style or seasonal colors. Forget soft, flowy or romantic. And at many stores, you have to pay more for them. It's just outrageous.
2.) Stores that make bigotry a feature. Anthropologie and its sister retailers (urban outfitters, Free People) went off my buy list earlier this year when I found out that the owner was a fervent Rick Santorum supporter. That was a shame because Brook looks great in everything in the local Anthropologie store that is a size 2. She has an Anthropologie quilt on her bed. I was going to save my green stamps to buy her a nice dress for her Germany trip but couldn't get past the Santorum thing so Anthropologie was out.
The same thing goes for Chik-Fil-A. There's a store in the next town up the road and not too long ago, I was tempted to stop in and buy something because I heard the food is pretty good for fast food. But since they've made such a big effing deal about being "Christians" who wear their anti-gay bigotry on their sleeves with pride and promote their "morality" to their employees, it will be a cold day in hell before I ever set foot in a Chik-Fil-A.
What I find particularly revolting about Dan Cathy's commitment to families is that he fails to see the children of gay couples as being family members themselves. Those kids are frequently on the losing end of legal battles over inheritance, pensions, social security, etc, when one of their parents die. It's disgusting and hypocritical for Cathy and his ilk to value one set of children over another because of the sexuality of their parents. Just thinking about it makes my blood boil.
I'm sure this is a selling point to their fundamentalist customers. Bully for them. Too bad that the homophobic church lady demographic is shrinking. On the other hand, Chik-Fil-A will find out exactly how the free market works!
Filed under: General | Tagged: ann taylor, Anthorpologie, banana republic., Chik-fil-A, clothing, eddie bauer, Free people, gay families, retail height penalty, Rick Santorum, tall women, urban outfitters |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
After much deliberation and consideration, I have picked out my top 10 books of 2012. The five best and the five worst. It wasn't as easy as I expected it to be. Only two or three books jumped out at me as belonging on these lists and the rest were all most equal and needed to be thought over very carefully. Finally, I reached a consensus.
The Five Best
This book stood out to me by a mile when I considered my best books of the year. I read it a little over a month ago and I still catch myself thinking about it and pondering over it. I have recommended it to every person I know and will await the next book with bated breath. It was a creepy and amazing book that was so much more than I ever expected it to be and created a fan out of me.
2. Daughter of Smoke & Bone by Laini Taylor.
This is another book that swept me off my feet and enticed me into its world and didn't want to let me go. It is a beautifully written book and I expect a lot of great things for the author in the future. A masterfully woven tale that I couldn't put down.
While I may not have reviewed this on the blog, it was one of my favorites all the same. For anyone who doesn't know, I am a gigantic fan of Scott Sigler. I can only think of one thing I have read by him that I didn't absolutely love. Now this book does have a few moments where even a die-hard junkie like me rolled my eyes, but the overarching story was spectacular. It was creepy, fun, and interesting for all the right reasons. Sigler's horror novels aren't the kind that will scare you and make you check under the bed, that's not his style of horror. His style of horror is the kind that has you wrinkling your nose and thinking, "Oh my God!"
4. And All the Stars by Andrea K Host
This book was a surprise. I had seen a lot of good reviews for it but wasn't sure what to expect. But it was a joy and a pleasure to read. The characters were real, the story was interesting, and I couldn't put it down. Without a doubt one of the best books I picked up this year.
5. The Lost Prince by Julie Kagawa
Before last year I had never read a Julie Kagawa book. I had heard a lot of great things and when I got offered the chance to read this beginning of a new series, I jumped at it to see what all the fuss was about. The fuss was well deserved because this book was fantastic. The world building was some of the best I have read and the characters were well-developed and rounded. I will be reading from his author again and hope to be just as pleased.
The Five Worst
1. The Rook by Daniel O'Malley
This book earned its place as the worst book of the year. It was boring and amateurish. The interest premise it established was squandered at every opportunity with boring nonsense. I wanted to quit on this book so many times and probably would have if it wasn't a book club read. The long swathes of gibberish that had nothing to do with the plot made this the most annoying book I read all year.
2. The Twelve by Justin Cronin
POVs that switched and swapped every few pages and a convoluted plot that made everything about as clear as mud are the primary reason this book sucked. Add in religious references being shoved in your face as nauseum and in the most annoying way possible and I wanted it to be over. 560 pages of purple prose later this book succeeded in making me fall asleep repeatedly and made my eyeballs shoot blood spontaneously to prevent any more pain.
This book made me angry. It has such a great story and it just pissed it away with typical boring YA garbage. The heroine was embarrassing to all young girls on the planet and the heroes should be locked up to protect the women of the world. I didn't find a single redeeming quality about this book.
4. Immortal City by Scott Speer
If ever there was a book that should be destroyed for the protection of humanity, it's this one. Yet again, another fascinating premise that they author mutilated and destroyed until it was unrecognizable. I hated the characters, the plot, the villain, and everything in between. I sincerely hope Mr. Speer goes back to screenwriting, it's a certainty that he's more talented at that than novels.
Ugh, what a waste of a tree. The characters were so irritating that I really didn't care if awful things happened to them. The plot dragged on and on and on but yet we never got anywhere. There was no point to any of it and no resolution in the end.
So that's it ladies and gents. These are my favorite and most hated books of 2012. I'm interested in knowing what yours are. Add a comment and tell me!


text:
Why Los Angeles is way better than San Diego
May 11, 2013 § 27 Comments
It's really simple: We have the best early morning weekday rides. San Diego doesn't.
What is a "best" early morning weekday ride? It's one that begins around 6:30 AM, has a huge regular turnout, and rips your legs off.
"Oh, no!" I can hear you wailing. "We have the awesome Tuesday-Thursday ride! It's hilly and it shreds the field!"
First of all, our ride is better because yours doesn't even have a cool name. That's because you're too dumb to think one up. All that supposed surfer-cyclist-artiste creativity in North County and the best you can do is two names of the week? Sad.
Second, our ride is better because your ride has such a tiny turnout. Five semi-fast guys showing up with a hangover and pulling out each others' teeth with rusty pliers does not a legendary bike ride make. Maybe it's the early hour and you wike your wittle warm bwankie. Maybe it's the lack of a swollen pack of baby seals among which the weak can cower and hide 'til the moment of reckoning. Maybe it's the fact that the vast majority of bicyclists in North County ride Trek. But most likely, it's the fact that your riders just aren't that good.
Third, our ride is better because we have Rahsaan Bahati, Suze Sonye, Greg "32" Leibert, Eric Anderson, and Cory Williams as regulars. Who do you have? That dude with the full purple bodysuit and the bad smell, that's who.
Fourth, our ride is better simply because of the riders that you have and we don't. Leaving aside for the moment that none of your guys have even halfway decent nicknames, let me list a few rotten limbs in the pile of deadwood that makes up your "ride":
Stefanovich–Comes north to do our NPR, returns home a shell of his former self, which was a shell to begin with.
Crazy Legs–The name kind of says it all, eh? Along with him, "Sketch," "Skitters," "Twitch," and "Jerky"…
Andy McClooney–The best rider to never come north and get his serving of NPR humble pie.
Number 2–Pyeeeeeewwwwh!
Celo Pacific Wheelsuckers–This is a club developed around the riding "strategy" of "do nothing until the end, then do even less."
Los Ranchos Suckeros–Every yummy pie has filler, but these sandbaggers don't even taste good when you chew them up and spit them out.
Velo (barely) Hangers-on–Close relatives of NPR baby seals who think "towards the front" is synonymous with "at the front." It isn't.
Swami's B, C, and D Riders–It's the alphabet soup of lowly categorized wankers. Their best ones make the first ejecta from the first acceleration on the Saturday ride. Their worst ones don't even have bicycles.
Nytro trigeeks–They don't always look and ride like idiots, but the 99.9% of the time when they do, they're so far behind that no one knows or cares.
The Wolf Pack Up-and-Leavers–Last to the fight, first to the feast.
Fifth, our ride is better because we brag about it. If it weren't for my amazing powers of investigative journalism, I wouldn't even know your ride existed. If you don't brag about it, it must not be any good.
Sixth, our ride is better because we have a cool FB page. Do you? Of course not. Without a cool FB page your ride can never be more than sucky. Sorry.
Seventh, our ride is waaaaay better because Robert Efthimos and Cory Williams video everything and then post cool movies of wankers like Jay "Manslaughter" LaPlante trying to murder his buddies. Then we get to spend the entire workday on FB chatting about it. What do you poor slobs do? You go to work and work, that's what.
Eighth, our ride is better because we actively make fun of people who wear Oakley. SPY is how we roll, yo.
Ninth, our ride is better because we have that cute Asian chick who's always jogging down the alley as we roll out. Who do you have? That furry dude who lives in the shopping cart behind the Starbucks.
Tenth, our ride is better because we have a ride kit. That's right. Our ride is so pimpin' that we have a kit with our cool ride's name on it and lots of clever "in" jokes emblazoned on it by Joe Yule. Our ride is beautifully tanned Argentine leather. Yours is naugahyde.
Eleventh, we have Joe Yule. You have that dude who lives in his mom's garage and builds web sites with Dreamweaver.
Twelfth, we have CotKU. You probably don't even know what that is. Sad.
Finally, after our awesome ride, which is always awesome and so much better than yours, we get to sit around at CotKU, drink coffee, and watch Dave Perez do interesting things dressed up in purple and yellow. What do you have? A bunch of really serious MRI dudes dressed up in electric green baby dwarf artichoke outfits. Hint: You can't be serious if you are a dude in a baby dwarf artichoke suit. A clown, perhaps, but not a serious dude.
The day of reckoning
Although I've already reached my conclusions, invented my facts, and printed my story, I thought I would at least do you the favor of coming down to the next Tuesday ride to confirm that your ride is a complete sham and pose fest. I have no doubt about what I'll find: A handful of scraggly, half-shaved riders, tummies hanging out of their undersized stretch pants while they suck down a gallon of pre-ride sugar goop pretending that their "ride" is a ride.
Please also be advised that I will be showing up fully primed and prepared to teach each of you the meaning of the word "beatdown." Although I don't expect to break a sweat, you should expect to suffer a calamitous clubbing. This is what LA is all about: Schooling the noobs in the south about how to ride their bicycles. After that I will give the survivors a surfing lesson, beginning with "How not to purl every time" and then followed by a video showing you the difference between a rideable wave, a closeout, and whitewash. Not that it will help.
See you soon, and bring your moped. You're gonna need it.


text:
(2015) Drama (Weinstein) Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller, Daniel Brûhl, Emma Thompson, Riccardo Scamarcio, Omar Sy, Sam Keeley, Henry Goodman, Matthew Rhys, Stephen Campbell Moore, Uma Thurman, Lexi Benbow-Hart, Alicia Vikander, Lily James, Sarah Greene, Bo Bene, Elisa Lasowski, Julian Firth, Martin Trenaman, Esther Adams. Directed by John Wells
The pursuit of excellence often becomes an obsession with perfection. It can often be a journey that becomes a nightmare of excess, fueled by drugs, sex and ego and lead one down to oblivion. Coming back from that can be nearly impossible.
But that's the task before Adam Jones (Cooper). Once a two-star Michelin chef in Paris, this American enfant terrible of the French culinary world was a bad boy living the fast life, driven to get that final third Michelin star but so lost in both his own ambition, a relationship with his mentor's daughter (Vikander) and an escalating drug habit that a spectacular meltdown lost him everything.
Two years of sobriety later, having worked shucking a million oysters in New Orleans, he's ready to resume his tilt and decides that opening up a restaurant at a prestigious London hotel would be the ticket. It so happens that Tony (Brûhl), the son of an old friend and perhaps the best maître'd in Europe has such a restaurant that could use an infusion of the buzz that comes from having a celebrity chef. Tony is reluctant, given Adam's volatile temperament but eventually gives in.
Adam sets to putting together a "dream team" for this restaurant, bringing in a Michel (Sy), a sous chef he wronged in Paris but who has since forgiven him and Helene (Miller) who is a raw talent that Adam thinks can become great. She comes with a precocious daughter Lily (Benbow-Hart) who is as tough as any food critic when it comes to her meals.
Adam turns out to be a martinet in the kitchen, screaming in the faces of his staff and so obsessed with perfection that he forces Helene to apologize to a fish because of a minor mistake in cooking it. Eventually though he manages to get his act together and soon his kitchen is humming along like a well-oiled machine. However, there are complications; he owes a large debt to drug dealers that he won't let Tony pay for him and they are getting increasingly insistent on getting their money. He also is falling in love with Helene, who is developing strong feelings for him as well.
But things come to a head when the Michelin inspectors come and Adam faces an unexpected turn of events, sending him spiraling back down a road that he has sworn he wouldn't take again. Can even the great Adam Jones fix a meal gone this bad?
Cooper, who at one point in his life aspired to being a chef himself, makes an excellent Adam Jones. Cooper is one of Hollywood's most likable actors but he has to play a very unlikable character in the uber-driven Adam. His kitchen tantrums and occasionally manipulative tactics can sometimes leave a sour taste in one's mouth but Adam isn't a bad person per se, and we do get to see the humanity of the man peeking through at unexpected moments.
The rest of the cast is solid as you'd expect of a cast with this kind of international caliber. Miller, who worked with Cooper on American Sniper, retains the chemistry the two enjoyed on that film here. Thompson, who has a small role as Adam's therapist, shines as she always does and Rhys also has a meaty role as a rival chef. I particularly liked Sy, however; the big French actor has never turned in a subpar performance that I can recall and even though he seems to be on a supporting role treadmill at the moment, I foresee some big things in his future.
The problem I have with Burnt is that the predictability of the story. Other than one major twist, there's pretty much a Screenwriting 101 feel to the plot. There's even the precocious kid that exists for no other reason than because precocious kids always show up in movies like this. Not that Benbow-Hart isn't anything but good in her role, it's just that the character is extraneous. Does Helene really need to be a single mom? No, she just needs to be single. Her motherhood adds nothing to the emotional resonance of the film.
There's plenty of food porn and I will say that if you're hungry going in chances are you're going to have a craving for some good food and it isn't a stretch to say that you'll probably leave the theater (or your couch if you are reading this after it makes it to home video) hungry and not for fast food either; for a sit down meal in a place that has tablecloths and waiters and most importantly, delicious food. We can all use a good meal from time to time. As a movie, I would place this more as casual dining more than fine dining, but it does strike a chord nonetheless.
REASONS TO GO: Cooper and Miller have real chemistry. Plenty of food porn. Nicely paced.
REASONS TO STAY: Predictable story. Too-cute kid syndrome. Too many unnecessary subplots.
FAMILY VALUES: A whole lot of foul language and some drug references.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Cooper patterned his in-kitchen demeanor on that of Gordon Ramsey.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/20/15: Rotten Tomatoes: 27% positive reviews. Metacritic: 42/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Chef
NEXT: Kingdom of Shadows


text:
You are here
House Passes Enforcement Bill Lacking Temporary Worker Program
The House of Representatives passed its version of immigration reform on December 17 with a Republican-sponsored bill that would make unauthorized presence in the country a felony rather than a civil crime and would require employers to verify all employees' eligibility to work in the United States by using an electronic database.
The "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005," sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), would also build a high-tech fence along sections of the southern border, facilitate the enforcement of federal immigration law by local officials, and require detention of all non-Mexican unauthorized immigrants apprehended at or between official ports of entry.
A controversial amendment to eliminate citizenship for U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants was voted down, as was an amendment to build a fence along the entire southern border.
The bill, which passed with a 239 to 182 vote, is considered unlikely to pass in the Senate because it does not provide for the type of temporary worker program proposed by Senators from both parties. President Bush has also endorsed matching enforcement with a temporary worker plan.
A combination of business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as religious organizations, labor unions, and the National Council of La Raza all opposed the bill. Critics expressed concern at its treatment of businesses and unauthorized immigrants.
Proponents in Congress argued they were responding to constituents' immigration concerns and fixing long-standing failures in immigration law enforcement.
A spokesman for Mexican President Vicente Fox stated that reform addressing only security would not solve bilateral immigration challenges. Fox himself called the proposal for an expanded border fence "shameful."
President Bush praised the bill, but also restated his commitment to immigration reform that includes a temporary worker program. He urged the Senate to take action on immigration so that he could "sign a good bill into law."
The Senate debate on immigration reform is expected to begin by early February in the Judiciary Committee, which will consider a markup prepared by Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) that includes a temporary worker provision (see December 2005 Policy Beat for details).
Other provisions of the House bill include:
- Raising fines for employers who do not verify that new employees have authorization to work in the country and eventually requiring all existing employees to be checked against an eligibility database.
- Raising fines for smuggling and penalties for immigrant gang members.
- Barring entry for nationals of countries that denied or delayed acceptance of immigrants removed from the United States.
- Providing training for local law enforcement authorities across the country so they can enforce federal immigration law and reimbursing local authorities for immigration enforcement expenses.
- Making it a crime for anyone to assist immigrants who enter the country without authorization.
- Authorizing the expenditure of more than $2.2 billion to build double-layer border fences in parts of California and Arizona.
- Eliminating the Diversity Visa program, which allocates visas to immigrants from countries underrepresented in the immigration system.
To read the text of H.R. 4437, click here.
Policy Beat In Brief
H-1B Provision. The House of Representatives and Senate passed a version of the Budget Reconciliation bill — aimed at decreasing the budget deficit by about $39.4 billion — that would not authorize new H-1B and other employment-based visa numbers, as had been proposed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (see December 2005 Policy Beat for details). The Senate approved the bill with minor revisions on December 21. The House must now vote again on the amended version; its passage is considered all but certain.
Worksite Enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to announce new regulations to help employers verify their employees' work eligibility, according to a public statement by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. The regulatory changes would have two goals: simplifying the verification process for employers and creating tougher and more immediate punishment for noncompliant businesses. Chertoff also expressed DHS opposition to proposals to build a physical wall along the U.S. border. He stated that such a tactic is "phenomenally expensive" and not particularly effective.
Security Checks at USCIS. A report by the Inspector General of DHS found that security checks performed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) are overly reliant on documents that may be falsifiable. Also, the Inspector General said that USCIS lacks effective management for ensuring staff complete checks correctly, and that the agency is overly dependent on inefficient, paper-based processes. The Inspector General recommended expanding the use of biometric identification, clearly outlining objectives for staff to follow in completing background checks, as well as developing a measurable, risk-based plan to select cases for more thorough checks. USCIS conducted 7.3 million background checks in fiscal year (FY) 2004.
Border Surveillance Challenges. Another report by the DHS Inspector General found that Border Patrol remote surveillance technology faces several challenges, including lack of coordination between sensors and remote cameras, needless investigations into legitimate activity detected by surveillance devices, delays in installing cameras, and historical, cultural, and environmental restrictions on camera site selection. The Inspector General recommended that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ensure that future technology purchases can be integrated, standardize processes for collecting and reporting data on unauthorized entries and responses, and develop processes for measuring technology performance and site selection.
Hispanic Literacy. English literacy of Hispanic adults in the country declined between 1992 and 2003, according the U.S. Department of Education's National Assessment of Adult Literacy survey. While the average literacy scores of Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders increased by six and 16 points respectively, the average English literacy scores of Hispanics dropped by 18 points. However, the test did not look at how long test-takers had been in the country. Influxes of new Hispanic immigrants may have distorted the results for Hispanics.
Detentions. Legally admitted immigrants who have been charged with a non-felony crime and face removal proceedings cannot be detained without bail, unless their removal proceedings are expedited or they can be shown to be a flight risk or danger to the community, according to a December 13 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Tijani v. Willis. The court stated that it is "constitutionally doubtful" that Congress has authority to authorize imprisonment of long duration for authorized immigrants subject to removal. The immigrant in question, Monsuro O. Tijani, had been detained for over two years and four months for 12 counts of falsifying financial statements.
- To read the original text of S. 1932, including the provisions to expand certain work visas, click here.
- To read Secretary Chertoff's statements on worksite regulations, click here.
- To view the DHS Inspector General's report on USCIS background checks, click here.
- To view the DHS Inspector General's report on border surveillance technology, click here.
- To view the results of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, click here.
- To read the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in Tijani v. Willis, click here.


text: > Anyone know how much the memory could contribute to the overall power load? fairly minor: I just looked at a micron 512MB dimm that had a peak draw of ~8.5A at 2.6V -> 22W. that's for a dimm with the max number of chips, operating bank interleaved, one read per cycle. a real system could never manage that. a same-spec device with half the number of chips dissipates half the power, and a more realistic full-load dissipation is more like 2A -> 5W. so figuring ~30W of memory in a dual-opteron is probably reasonable. that's real dissipation, of course - call it 45W when measured at the wall. > > I managed to hook up my kill-a-watt to a dual opteron 2.6 GHz, 4GB pc3200, > > and a 73GB scsi disk (a sun v20z). The highest power consumption I > > could find was was running 1 distributed.net client per cpu. > > > > The results was 197-198 watts and 200-201 VA. I'm quite impressed, > > our 2.2GHz version of the same box is in the 270-300 watt range.


text:
Especially when it comes to the Bible.
I'm reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's Pulitzer-winning The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism. It's excellent if you're into that sort of thing. I am.
Today, though, an aside caught my eye. President Roosevelt, having asked Taft twice to return from his post as governor of the Philippines twice to serve on the Supreme Court, wrote him a third time to insist that he return to replace the retiring Secretary of War.
"You will think I am a variety of the horse leech's daughter," Roosevelt began, alluding to the biblical parable in which a blacksmith's perpetually dissatisfied daughter demands ever more of him.
My first thought was "I know the Bible decently well, and I have no idea what she's talking about." So I took advantage of my vast theological library Googled it.
Roosevelt is referring to Proverbs 30:15, which starts out "The leech has two daughters: Give and Give." It can also be translated "The leech has two daughters; 'Give! Give!' they cry." Admittedly it's a strange verse, having to do with forces in nature that are never satisfied.
At any rate, the KJV uses the word "horseleach," which is a certain type of leech, but also apparently a term for a veterinarian or blacksmith for horses. The Bible verse, though, is referring to the leech.
This is fun, isn't it. But here's the relevance: You can see how Goodwin got where she got. However, in regards to Roosevelt's allusion,
- There is no parable, just [a half of] a proverb.
- There is no blacksmith, and therefore no blacksmith's daughter.
Goodwin is a smart person and a good writer. In all likelihood, she read this obscure reference from Roosevelt, looked up a couple of things, and patched together a backstory. It's just that the backstory was wrong. It's a little more interesting is that no one in the pipeline— Goodwin, research assistants, editors– was familiar enough with the Bible to raise an eyebrow. But even there, hard to criticize non-Christians for not knowing obscure Bible passages super well.
Here's the point: Smart people get things wrong, just like the rest of us. People with Pulitzers and PhD's are human. They have gaps in their knowledge and understanding, to say nothing of the little biases and mental tricks we're all prone to. This problem is magnified when the Bible is involved. People who know very little about it feel very confident in making bold assertions about its contents and their value. (I'm not accusing Goodwin of this.)
Never assume that something's true just because a smart person said it.
Remember that the next time you read something about the Bible that makes you say "wait, what?"
Note: It's possible that I've missed something here, that Goodwin is right and I'm wrong. If that's true, I invite you, kind reader, to bring evidence to my attention, and perhaps you will prove my larger point by refuting my example.


text:
Vladimir Socor has a good piece describing Russian shipbuilders' complaints to the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) about the Mistral purchase as another way to press Paris to finalize the deal on Moscow's terms. Socor says:
"In line with the Russian government's tactics, [Deputy PM and OSK Board Chairman] Sechin is signaling that Moscow could turn to other international shipbuilders, or ultimately to Russian shipbuilders, if France does not sweeten the terms of the Mistral deal for Russia."
"Thus, Sechin's subsidiaries [Yantar and Admiralty] ostensibly seek anti-monopoly action in a case handled by Sechin himself for the Russian government."
This points up the bizarre circumstance in which Sechin is negotiating with the French, while his OSK subsidiaries complain about the potential deal.
But, as Interfaks wrote on Wednesday, FAS says it lacks jurisdiction over the complaint from Yantar and Admiralty. FAS also says there's no basis for a complaint since no deal for Mistral has been reached.
The shipyards argue they've been excluded from bidding to build amphibious assault ships for the Navy, and the terms of the competition weren't publicly announced. Their complaint seems to have merit since, from the outset, the Defense Ministry went directly after a specific ship and supplier, without issuing general requirements for a ship class.
According to Interfaks, OSK supports Yantar and Admiralty, and calls the Defense Ministry's actions 'obscure.' Its representatives periodically speak of Mistral like a done deal, but how the deal will proceed remains unclear. An OSK source says, "And every time such statements deliver a blow to the self-esteem of domestic shipbuilders who know how to make these ships."
And, as Socor notes, talks continue also with the Dutch and Spanish [as Defense Minister Serdyukov has always pointed out] and now the possibility of a deal with the South Koreans has been thrown in, further roiling the waters.
Izvestiya yesterday said OSK President Roman Trotsenko sent a letter to Defense Minister Serdyukov proposing a review of the military's plans to acquire Mistral. In its place, Trotsenko suggests building the South Korean Dokdo under license in a Russian shipyard. He says he can build it in three years, and more cheaply than Mistral by one-third. OSK has a joint production agreement with Dokdo builder Daewoo.
The Defense Ministry insists Russian builders demurred when asked if they could build these ships. Izvestiya doubts Trotsenko's offer is realistic given the lack of available Russian buildingways. But the paper concludes the appearance of the letter shows the struggle for the amphibious carrier contract isn't over.


text:
Axelrod wagers to shave mustache
David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, said Wednesday he will shave off his mustache "of 40 years" on national television if Obama loses Minnesota, Michigan or Pennsylvania on Election Day.
Axelrod bet Joe Scarborough, the host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," that Obama would win all three states, which have trended Democratic in recent contests. Mitt Romney's campaign insists all three are now in play.
"I will come on 'Morning Joe' and I will shave off my mustache of 40 years if we lose any of those three states," Axelrod said.
( Also on POLITICO: Poll: Voters say Obama will win)
Axelrod then challenged Scarborough to grow mustache if Obama won any of those states, a wager the former GOP congressman rejected. Scarborough counter-offered, saying he would grow a mustache - for the first time - if Obama wins either North Carolina or Florida. Axelrod agreed to her terms.
Polls indicate Axelrod's upper lip might be safer than Scarborough's.
A Detroit News poll released Tuesday found Obama leading in Michigan, 48 percent to 45 percent. A Minneapolis Star-Tribune poll found similar results in Minnesota, with Obama ahead by 47 percent to 44 percent. And Obama is on top by 4 percentage points in a poll of Pennsylvania released Tuesday.
While North Carolina appears safer for Romney — the former Massachusetts governor led 50 percent to 45 percent in a SurveyUSA poll on Tuesday — Scarborough's home state of Florida is a toss-up. A New York Times/CBS poll released Wednesday has Obama clinging to a 1-point lead, 50 percent to 49 percent.
Other Democrats joined Axelrod in wagering.
"I will dye my hair black and wear a fake mustache if they win Pennsylvania, Michigan or New Mexico," Obama campaign press secretary Jen Psaki, a redhead, said on MSNBC.
And Democratic consultant Joe Trippi made an audacious bet: "I'll shave my head on FOX," wrote Trippi, a Fox News contributor. He deleted the message soon after.
Reporters also chimed in on Twitter. ABC News' Jake Tapper suggested Axelrod shave "just the left half o' the stache." Yahoo! News' Chris Moody joked he "would have to be biased" now that Axelrod was offering to shave.
"He can't shave it! It's almost Movember!" Moody wrote, referring to a mustache-growing charity event that is held in November to raise awareness and funds for men's health issues.


text:
The Plumeria Suite at the Kauai Beach Inn is our largest room and features a very comfortable king-size bed, a large sitting area and private bathroom with jetted tub & separate shower, a private shaded lanai, in-room drink cooler, flat screen TV with cable and Netflix, and free WiFi. (continued below)
Click Here to Check Price & Availability for the Plumeria Suite
Often referred to as the "Honeymoon Suite," the Plumeria Suite is a popular choice for newlyweds and couples who are celebrating an anniversary, or those who are getting married here in Hawaii. Of course, like all our rooms, it includes a delicious full breakfast each morning.
Click Here to Check Price & Availability for the Plumeria Suite
Learn More About
Our Suites & Rooms | Our Property
Our Delicious Breakfast Served Daily
Suites & Rooms at Kauai Beach Inn: Plumeria Suite | Bougainvillea Suite | Orchid Room | Ginger Room


text:
Today's News: Our Take - Pilot Season: Nat Faxon to Play Paget Brewster's Love Interest in ABC's Spy
Nat Faxon has landed his first post-Ben and Kate role, as Paget Brewster's love interest on the ABC comedy pilot Spy, TVGuide.com has learned.
Based on a British satire, Spy tells the story of a man named Tim (Rob Corddry), who unwittingly takes a job at the Secret Service to prove his worth as a father. Paget Brewster stars as Tim's ex-wife, Erica, and Faxon will play her boyfriend Alan, who desperately wants to become friends with Tim.
Pilot Season: Get all the latest scoop
Faxon is listed as a guest star in the pilot but the role could potentially be recurring.
Are you looking forward to seeing Faxon back on TV?
View original Pilot Season: Nat Faxon to Play Paget Brewster's Love Interest in ABC's Spy at TVGuide.com
Other Links From TVGuide.com


text:
SRD:Legendary Dreadnought
From D&D Wiki
|This material is published under the OGL 1.0a.
Hit Die: d12.
To qualify to become a legendary dreadnought, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.
- Base Attack Bonus: +23.
- Skills: Intimidate 15 ranks.
Class Skills
The legendary dreadnought's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), and Swim (Str).
Skill Points at Each Level: 2 + Int modifier.
Table: The Legendary Dreadnought
|Unstoppable 1/day
|Unmovable 1/day
|Shrug off punishment
|Thick skinned
|Bonus feat
|Unstoppable 2/day
|Unmovable 2/day
|Shrug off punishment
|Thick skinned
|Bonus feat
Class Features
The following are class features of the legendary dreadnought prestige class.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A legendary dreadnought is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, all armor, and all shields.
Unstoppable (Ex): At 1st level, the legendary dreadnought can concentrate his or her power, gaining a +20 bonus on his or her Strength check to break or burst a door or item once per day, plus one additional time per day every five levels thereafter. As a special use of this ability, the legendary dreadnought can attempt to break a wall of force (Strength DC 32, and the character applies his or her unstoppable bonus to this check as well). Alternatively, the legendary dreadnought can apply the +20 bonus to a single attack roll.
Unmovable (Ex): At 2nd level, the legendary dreadnought can concentrate his or her power, making him or herself unmovable once per day, plus one additional time per day every five levels thereafter. This power grants the character a +20 bonus on any one of the following:
- A grapple check made to avoid being grabbed with the improved grab ability.
- A Strength check to avoid the effects of a bull rush, trip attempt, or similar effect.
- A Strength check against any effect that would move the character either physically or magically.
Any one saving throw. If an effect that would move the character either physically or magically does not normally allow a saving throw, the legendary dreadnought can use this ability to gain a Will saving throw. He or she still gains the +20 bonus on the saving throw in such a case.
Shrug off Punishment (Ex): The legendary dreadnought gains 12 bonus hit points at 3rd level and 12 more every five levels thereafter.
Thick Skinned (Ex): At 4th level, the legendary dreadnought gains Damage Reduction 3/–. This does not stack with Damage Reduction granted by magic items or nonpermanent magical effects, but it does stack with any Damage Reduction granted by permanent magical effects, class features, the Damage Reduction feat, and this ability itself. The Damage Reduction improves by 3 points every five levels thereafter
Bonus Feats: The legendary dreadnought gets a bonus feat at 5th level and an additional bonus feat every five levels thereafter. These bonus feats must be selected from the following list: Armor Skin, Devastating Critical, Dire Charge, Epic Fortitude, Epic Prowess, Epic Toughness, Epic Weapon Focus, Epic Weapon Specialization, Fast Healing, Great Constitution, Great Strength, Improved Combat Reflexes, Overwhelming Critical, Penetrate Damage Reduction.
Back to Main Page → 3.5e Open Game Content → System Reference Document → Classes


text:
I am just approaching to the Smart Phone and Android world and have a couple of doubts:
Which modules (and SW or FW?) decide the policies with which power is given to any component of the Smart Phone that requires it?
Are power management modules on Smart Phones implemented in the Android OS or in some special dedicated firmware?
Obviously power management must work also if the OS is not yet loaded, but who is responsible of it?
And to what extent can I modify the power management with an application running inside of the OS?
(I hope these questions are not Off-Topic, in case can you please direct me to the correct Stack-Exchange site?)


text:
Blog Archives
#52FilmsByWomen, Denzel Washington, and More: January 2016 in Films
In case you missed it, here's my wrap-up for A Year With Women one more time. As I slowly ease myself back into watching films directed by men, I've definitely felt a bit of a culture shock. I've tried to keep my watching very women-centric, because I don't know if I could handle a lack of women characters too. It's been a relatively steady transition, although you will see my favorite films I watched last month were still mostly those directed by women! As always, you can see all the films I watched as well as a few favorites after the cut.
Movie Quote of the Day – Rocky Balboa, 2006 (dir. Sylvester Stallone)
Rocky Balboa: You ain't gonna believe this, but you used to fit right here. [taps on the inside of his hand] I'd hold you up to say to your mother, "this kid's gonna be the best kid in the world. This kid's gonna be somebody better than anybody I ever knew." And you grew up good and wonderful. It was great just watching you, every day was like a privilege. Then the time come for you to be your own man and take on the world, and you did. But somewhere along the line, you changed. You stopped being you. You let people stick a finger in your face and tell you you're no good. And when things got hard, you started looking for something to blame, like a big shadow. Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard you hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done! Now if you know what you're worth then go out and get what you're worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that and that ain't you! You're better than that! [beat] I'm always gonna love you no matter what. No matter what happens. You're my son and you're my blood. You're the best thing in my life. But until you start believing in yourself, ya ain't gonna have a life. Don't forget to visit your mother.


text: The day after I post a video is the crucial make or break juncture to delete or not to.... And all too often, an upload bites the dust with a private funeral of sorts, that leaves no remains. But with my new iMac 21 having joined the family, video trashing has gone public. Through paper… Continue reading Blog favorite revival time.. THE MORNING AFTER YOU TUBING (with added color)


text:
Twice-divorced Madonna may give matrimony one more shot. According to her biographer, J. Randy Taraborrelli, Madonna has recently considered taking her May-December romance with Brazil model Jesus Luz to the next step.
"Madonna is crazy about Jesus," Taraborrelli wrote in Hello! Magazine. "(She) has been telling close friends and family that 'I could definitely see myself marrying him. Yes, it's definitely on the table.'"
Thanks to the accounts of inside sources, the author of "Madonna: An Intimate Biography" is certain the 22-year-old Luz feels much the same way about his 51-year-old girlfriend.
"He respects her, that's number one," a Madonna insider revealed to Taraborrelli. "He has learned so much from her. He's amazed at how well-rounded she is, the way she juggles her career with her life as a mother, for instance. He understands that she's self-involved, too."
Beyond the mutual admiration, the insider insisted there's one other factor in a Madonna-Luz union that can't be ignored.
"Of course, the sex between them is scorching hot," the source said. "To be candid, it's what's driving things.'
Jude Law wants proof that Burke's baby is his Presumed fourth-time father Jude Law isn't ready to take credit for Samantha Burke's new bundle of joy just yet. Although Law previously confirmed he had a brief relationship with the cocktail waitress turned model, a report in the News of the World alleges the actor now wants a DNA test to prove newborn Sophia really is his daughter.
Slideshow 26 photos
Celebrity Sightings
"Jude is still very cautious about (Samantha) and Sophia," a friend of the actor revealed. "Until he is 100 percent certain she is his daughter he is only communicating through lawyers. If he is the father he will meet his obligations to the child. He's hoping for an early chance to establish that he is genuinely her dad."
Despite the star's uncertainty, the friend claimed Law assumed responsibility for Burke's prenatal expenses as well as the costs relating to the birth, but cautioned that those gestures don't point to paternity.
"It was an act of kindness," the insider assured, "rather than an admission that he was the dad."
Dish on the fly When "Twilight" heartthrob Robert Pattinson signed on for the role of Edward Cullen in the hit vampire romance, he had no idea of the whirlwind in store for him. "It's strange because even though the figures show that the books were successful and sold millions of copies, you couldn't even buy them in London," the 23-year-old explained to AnOther Man magazine. "I tried a couple of bookshops and they weren't available. Hardly anyone I knew had read them apart from one girl, a friend of my sister. I had no idea at all." Pattinson admitted he continued to underestimate the series after learning he'd share the screen with actress Kirsten Stewart. "I'd seen (her) in 'Into the Wild' and some of the director Catherine Hardwicke's other films, and that's all I thought it was, something really small," he recalled. … The gifting suite at Candy Ice Fine Jewelry's L.A. launch turned into the greedy suite when heiress Paris Hilton made her way to the front of the line last weekend. "Organizers wanted to gift Paris a diamond pendant," an insider told the New York Post's Page Six. "But she begged and begged to take the matching earrings, too." By the end of the night, Hilton walked away with $12,000 in gratis gems.
Tabloid Tidbits is compiled by Ree Hines.


text:
This week I am delighted to be immersed in international perspectives on school libraries and teacher librarianship as I participate in the 42nd annual conference of the International Association of School Librarianship. IASL conferences provide a gathering point for leaders and practitioners in the field of school libraries, and has allowed me to meet some amazing and inspirational people over the years. This year, the IASL conference "Enhancing Students' Life Skills through the School Library" is hosted in Bali, Indonesia by the Indonesia Association of School Library Workers, an independent organization facilitating school library workers to improve competencies and develop school librarianship in Indonesia.
After preparing the conference paper "Building a Vibrant Future for School Librarians through Online Conversations for Professional Development" I was fortunate to be able to present a lively presentation and discussion session (translated into Indonesian) about digital environments and the work of the School of Information Studies to support online conversations as part of the personal learning networks in this context.


text:
'What's for dinner?' Providing the answer to this simple question is getting increasingly complicated. Even a quick glance at the daily news turns every meal into an experience fraught with uncertainty and guilt. Because almost everything turns out to be bad for the health, or the environment, or both.
– Meat is high in fats and cholesterol and stuffed with antibiotics and hormones.
– Fish is full of metal deposits and also guilt-inducing due to overfishing. Sushi is particularly to blame for the depletion of the oceans. Another minus is that, according to a recent article, fish are eating minute particles of plastic – it seems that plastic smells good when mixed with seawater – and this ends up in their tissues.
– Vegetables and fruit are riddled with pesticides, unless they are organic.
– Dairy products are to be totally avoided, being indigestible and artery-clogging. Cheese, in particular, is maligned as being tantamount to poison.
– Sadly, almond milk, which is a good substitute for dairy, is terrible for the environment, since its production uses up huge amounts of water.
– Anything 'white' and 'refined', such as flour, pasta and rice, should be avoided like the plague. Only the wholemeal varieties will do, if that.
There is very little one can be sure about:
– Wine, in small quantities, appears to be good for you – until you read the next study, which has now discovered it is bad (or is it good again?) The same goes for chocolate (black, of course) and coffee.
– Eggs are terrible for cholesterol levels – BUT I just read an article that it is now considered advisable to eat up to ten a week. – Seafood is also high in cholesterol, with the added environmentally-unfriendly aura connected with fish (see depletion of oceans, above).
– We can't even count on spirits to raise our spirits (pardon the awful pun). A lovely mojito, a vodka tonic, a drop of whisky – out of the question. Not should any morsel of dessert (brownies, ice cream, cake) pass our lips. I did, however, read an article that gin is good for the health.
– And salt? Is salt good or bad? Opinion differs here too.
There are also practical matters to be considered:
– Should you eat breakfast, or can you skip it? I recently read that it's okay, even beneficial, to do the latter, although up to now we were taught to 'breakfast like a king…' etc. etc.
–Juicing helps with getting your five-a-day, but breaks down the fibers in the fruit and veggies. So better not.
And moral ones:
I admit I'm a terrible hypocrite, since I enjoy a lamb chop as much as the next person, but would probably be a total vegetarian if I had to kill the said lamb myself. However, I feel like screaming when I hear vegetarians self-righteously proclaim they still eat butter and cheese, 'because no animals get killed in the process.' When I try to explain the basic facts of agriculture, they just don't seem to get it. I have good friends who keep repeating the same argument every time food is discussed.
So, what the devil are we supposed to eat?
As far as I can see, that leaves seeds (chia, sesame) pulses (chickpeas…) and insects (which are full of protein and totally devoid of fat). The Swiss are about to stack supermarket shelves with food made from mealworms, which are the larval form of the mealworm beetle. We're talking 'burgers', made by a startup called Essento, in which the mealworms are combined with vegetables, herbs and spices. Sound yummy? Their byword is 'delicious insects.'
Apparently, fried crickets and grasshoppers are also tasty and crunchy, I suppose as a substitute for potato chips, which are notoriously bad for the health. According to the experts, insects have a high culinary potential, their production saves resources and their nutritional profile is high-quality. They are the perfect complement to a modern diet.
On the strength of the above, I have compiled a menu for a dinner party:
Drinks: Gin and tonic (gin is good for you, right? Unless a new survey comes out before the evening in question, saying the contrary). Crispy fried locusts and organic carrot sticks.
Starter: Organic quinoa with kale chips and sliced raw radishes. I actually had this made for me by a friend, and it was surprisingly tasty.
Main course: Mealworms 'burgers' with raw cauliflower 'risotto'. The latter is a recipe favored by vegans, but I confess I've never had it – I love cauliflower, but eating it raw instead of rice – not so much.
Desert: I need to find a recipe that avoids eggs, sugar and flour – probably something made with oats and fruit and sweetened with stevia. As if life was not complicated enough…
One must not forget to be extra careful because of people's allergies to nuts, gluten or even strawberries. Thus the planning of a simple dinner has been turned into a major strategic exercise – what with reading up on the latest developments and finding the ingredients (although some might be captured in the garden?)
Perhaps the answer is to eat everything, but stop reading? Because it never ends. Today, I read an article about antibiotics. It seems doctors now are not sure which to prescribe, because of resistance and allergies. Also they disagree about whether you should finish the whole course, or stop taking them as soon as you feel better.
I rest my case.
Bon appetit, everyone!


text:
Museum Guidelines
Guidelines for Class Visits to the Art Museum and the Skinner Museum
You can help us preserve our Museum collections by following these guidelines:
Please check backpacks, large bags, coats, umbrellas, and other large items in the locker area adjacent to the Museum lobby before entering the galleries, or in the Skinner Museum foyer.
No food, gum, or drinks (including water bottles) are allowed in either Museum.
Only pencils (and not pens) are permitted in both Museums, including the Carson Teaching Gallery.
No touching of the artwork is permitted. Do not point with any objects (including pencils) and keep a distance of at least 6 inches.
Still photography without flash is permitted for private, non-commercial use only. Videotaping and use of tripods or selfie sticks are not permitted without prior arrangement. Visitors are responsible for determining copyright restrictions.
Accessible restrooms and a water fountain are located in the Art Museum lobby; all galleries are accessible.
Note that only the first floor of the Skinner Museum is fully accessible, and no publicly accessible restrooms or a water fountain are available on site.
Please let us know in advance if any students in your group need special accommodations.
Additional Guidelines for Studio Art Classes
We encourage sketching in both Museums. For safety, please follow these guidelines:
- Drawing pads and masonite boards must not be larger than 18 x 24 inches.
Only graphite pencils are permitted. No charcoal, pastel, crayon, ballpoint pens, ink, markers, fountain pens, or watercolors.
Pencil and eraser shavings must be contained. Receptacles are available from the guard on duty.
While sketching, please do not hinder visitor traffic flow in the galleries.
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC (Fall semester):
Art Museum: Tuesday–Friday (11:00 am–5:00 pm), Saturday & Sunday (1:00–5:00 pm)
Closed on Mondays
Skinner Museum: available for class appointments; re-opening to the public in October 2022, check Visit page for details
Search the Museum's online Collections Database of 24,000 objects: museums.fivecolleges.edu


text: Gasification is a partial oxidation process. The term partial oxidation is a relative term which simply means that less oxygen is used in gasification than would be required for combustion (i.e., burning or complete oxidation) of the same amount of fuel. Gasification typically uses only 25 to 40 percent of the theoretical oxidant (either pure oxygen or air) to generate enough heat to gasify the remaining unoxidized fuel, producing syngas. The major combustible products of gasification are carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2), with only a minor amount of the carbon completely oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. The heat released by partial oxidation provides most of the energy needed to break up the chemical bonds in the feedstock, to drive the other endothermic gasification reactions, and to increase the temperature of the final gasification products.


text:
Far from heralding a new age of tolerance, Mr Obama's victory in the November 4 poll has highlighted the stubborn racism that lingers within some elements of American society as opponents pour their frustration into vandalism, harassment, threats and even physical attacks.
Cross burnings, black figures hung from nooses, and schoolchildren chanting "Assassinate Obama" are just some of the incidents that have been documented by police from California to Maine.
There have been "hundreds" of cases since the election, many more than usual, said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes.
The phenomenon appears to be at its most intense in the Southern states, where opposition to Mr Obama is at its highest and where reports of hate crimes were emerging even before the election. Incidents involving adults, college students and even schoolchildren have dampened the early post-election glow of racial progress and harmony, with some African American residents reporting an atmosphere of fear and inter-community tension.In North Carolina, four students at the state university admitted writing anti-Obama comments in a tunnel designated for free speech expression, including one that said: "Let's shoot that (N-word) in the head." Mr Obama has received more threats than any other president-elect, authorities say.
Marsha L. Houston, a University of Alabama professor, said a poster of the Obama family was ripped off her office door. A replacement poster was defaced with a death threat and a racial slur. "It seems the election brought the racist rats out of the woodwork," Ms Houston said.
Second and third-grade students on a school bus in Rexburg, Idaho, chanted "assassinate Obama," a district official said.
Read on…


text:
More low-end Android gaming consoles are coming to China. But Microsoft's local partner isn't worried, and expects the Xbox to sell well as a high-end gaming product.
China recently ended its ban on foreign-made videogame consoles, clearing the way for Microsoft to sell its Xbox in the country.
Last September, BesTV established a joint venture with Microsoft meant to focus on gaming and entertainment. Since then, both companies have been working to localize the Xbox product for the China, BesTV said in a stock exchange filing on Tuesday.
"We believe that future profitability will be great," the company wrote.
BesTV, a local provider of Internet television services, is up against vendors of lower-end Android set-top boxes that can play games. But in the stock exchange filing, BesTV said it wanted to take a page from Apple, and position the Xbox as a higher-end product that mainstream consumers aspire for.
"The scale of our sales could be higher than those of knock-off and lower-end set-top boxes," the company added.
BesTV plans to announce more details about its Xbox strategy later this month, a company spokeswoman said Wednesday.
Last year, China ended its 13-year-old ban on the import of foreign-made videogame consoles.
But in recent months, local Chinese companies such as Huawei, ZTE, TCL have developed lower-end Android set-top boxes that can play games. In ZTE's case, the company's Fun Box is priced at 689 yuan (US$112), and it is aiming at device sales of at least 3 million units this year.
The low price could give Android consoles a leg up when trying to sell against traditional gaming systems such as Xbox One that can start at $499.
BesTV's spokeswoman declined to offer more details on the Xbox's launch date and its price in China. But the company, along with Microsoft, has been investing in creating gaming content. In the future, upcoming titles might revolve around Chinese culture, such as the martial art, T'ai chi.
Microsoft did not immediately comment.


text:
< Features
No edit summary
|Line 65:
|Line 65:
== Release Notes ==
== Release Notes ==
Fedora now ships a new qxl kernel mode setting .
== Comments and Discussion ==
== Comments and Discussion ==
Revision as of 18:41, 15 September 2012
QXL/Spice KMS Driver
Currently the QXL driver is X.org only, a KMS driver is required to move forward with projects like spice 3D, and also to allow more features to be show in virt environments like plymouth.
- Name: Alon Levy
- Email: <firstname.lastname@example.com>
Current status
- Targeted release: Fedora 19
- Last updated: 9-15-2012
- Percentage of completion: 70%
- First proposed for F18.
- Missed alpha. Alpha (14th of August) will not have a testable version.
- Planned for beta. I plan to have it testable at the next milestone - beta, 18th of September.
- Postponed to F19
No other features are dependent on it, and the fallback is to continue using the existing user space driver.
Detailed Description
The current spice GPU driver for Linux guests is an X.org only driver. A kernel modesetting driver needs to be developed along with a new X.org driver that runs on top of it. This will allow it to work with the modesetting DDX driver and will require a new ioctl interface to update the qxl DDX driver to work on it. The driver needs to support all revisions of the qxl device.
Benefit to Fedora
Fedora acts closer to native hardware inside spice VMs.
- Develop a basic modesetting driver for QXL GPU
- partially done
- Develop an acceleration/memory management interface for QXL GPU.
- partially done
- Develop a new X.org driver on top of the new interfaces.
- needs work
How To Test
- Test inside a virtual machine with QXL support, via virt-manager: create a new vm with qxl video (default of 64MiB) and spice.
- plymouth should show up along with smooth booting.
- X should work as usual.
User Experience
- There should be no regressions from the non kms driver experience.
- If the qxl module isn't loaded (compiled out or forced not to load via kernel command line) driver should work as usual without kms.
- Older drivers will not be supported when kms module is loaded. Fedora will update the kernel side by side with xf86-video-qxl so this won't be a problem.
- kernel changes - drivers/gpu/drm/qxl
- X.org changes - updated xf86-video-qxl
Contingency Plan
Do nothing, stay as we are now.
See spice-space
Release Notes
Fedora 19 now ships a new qxl kernel mode setting driver.
Comments and Discussion
- See Talk:Features/QXLKMSSupport
- git: kernel, drm, xf86-video-qxl