Well, I have to say that I am satisfied with the results of the elections yesterday. The day after election day in 2004, I was ashamed of my country and my state for the poor decisions that were made. This morning, I am quite pleased.

There is a real sense of turning a corner here -- a real sense of change. Obama has an opportunity to repair the damage done by George W Bush in many ways that McCain could not, particularly in the areas of civil rights and our standing in world opinion. America broke through a barrier yesterday that many thought would stand for a very long time.

Personally, I still think Hillary Clinton would have made a better president than either of the final candidates, but Barack Obama is going to be good for this country, and I look forward to having some real leadership for a change.

One again, I am boggled as to the reason why Congress is spending any of my money investigating a professional baseball player.

Now, I fully understand that the use of steroids and human growth hormone by a professional baseball player is a very bad idea. I understand that it is against the rules. I understand it is dangerous. I understand that it is cheating. But, to the best of my knowledge, the use or abuse of steroids and HGH in this country is not illegal.

Given that, why is Roger Clemens sitting in Washington, DC, this week defending himself? (And looking guilty as hell, but that's another story.) What is Congress going to do? Even if he is guilty, what then? They can't put him in jail. They can't even ban him from the Hall of Fame. What are they going to do? "Bad boy, let's break for lunch and get back to fund-raising."

I see that in a recent issue of Consumer Reports, they concluded that the 5-blade Gillette Fusion razor didn't do any better than its less expensive competitors. I have a story about that.

I used to use the Schick Quattro, with its 4 blades. It did a pretty good job, although after a couple of weeks it would start to pull the hair more than I liked. I always laughed about the 5-blade Gillette Fusion, because the concept seemed so utterly ridiculous. It was just like the old SNL sketch about a 5-bladed razor: "...and the 4th and 5th blades? They don't do anything, but aren't you glad they're there?"

Last fall, I received a sample Gillette Fusion in the mail. I figured this was a great opportunity to prove to myself how ridiculous the 5th blade was. Eventually, I did give it a try, and to my surprise it was much better than the Quattro. It did a better job with stubble, it didn't pull the hair, the cartridge ejection mechanism is much easier to use, and the shaft is lighter in weight while still having a nicely high-tech feel.

I switched back and forth over a period of several weeks, and I'm embarrassed to admit that, for me at least, the Gillette Fusion is a much better solution than the Schick Quattro. I've switched completely.

I'm amused by the advertisements for "AT&T, formerly Cingular." They might as well tell the whole story: "AT&T, formerly Cingular, formerly AT&T, formerly Cellular One."

How much lower would my cell phone bill be if they hadn't had to redesign their logo, their building, their stationery, their business cards, their collateral material, and their advertising so many times?

Usually, brand loyalty is the driving force behind keeping your name unchanged. Is there really enough negative market energy behind those old names that it was worth the trouble?

I plan to vote for the so-called "Healthy Kids Initiative", Measure 50, more accurately known as the "cigarette tax". However, there is something I don't understand.

I don't understand why this was floated as a constitutional amendment instead of a legislative act. If you are one of the two people who have read my past blog entries, then you know I set a higher bar for constitutional amendment initiatives than I do for legislative initiatives. It seems to me that a specific tax like this is not something that belongs in a constitution.

Now, I do understand their incentive; by putting it in the constitution, the Legislature can't tweak it on its own. It requires another constitutional amendment to change it later. However, that's a sucky reason to make something a constitutional amendment.

The ads from the cigarette companies trying to kill this measure are slimy and filled with misdirection and falsehoods, but if we're going to criticize them for it, I think we should demand a similar level of honesty from those in favor.

I saw a television commercial over the weekend for a new allergy-related nasal spray called Veramyst. I was struck by one of the disclaimers that flashed at the bottom of the screen:

The way Veramyst works is not entirely understood.

I love that. It's completely typical of the pharmaceutical trade today. "We don't know what this does, but please buy it and shove it up your nose. Maybe we'll figure it out later."

Let's hope that it doesn't work by killing the brain cells that trigger immune responses.

OK, I'll admit it. I like Harry Potter. I've read all of the books, and I've seen all of the movies.

I enjoyed the 7th book. I thought Rowling did an admirable job of tying up the enormous number of loose ends that had been left around throughout the series. A lot of things were made clear, and many people got exactly what they deserved. It was a satisfying conclusion.

The 5th movie, Order of the Phoenix, was OK. This was not my favorite book in the series. Harry spends much of the book feeling sorry for himself, and that doesn't really come out in the movie. The movie was really quite different from the book in many ways, mostly because it would have taken 4 hours long to fit in all of the action. I also find the whole Umbridge thing a bit difficult to swallow. She would not have been allowed to mutilate and mercilessly interrogate children with impunity. I know parents!

I received a spam email this morning from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, as I do on a weekly basis.  I haven't canceled it, because it isn't terribly annoying, and I find it moderately interesting.  Each week's spam is supposedly authored by a different democratic senator, and it's kind of fun to get an email from Ted Kennedy.

This week's issue expressed outrage over the president's commutation of Scooter Libby's jail sentence in the CIA outing case.  I wrote them the following reply, some of which duplicates my last blog entry.

I am not convinced that "outrage" is quite the right emotion here.  We need to be very careful to cast this in the proper light.

The president is, in fact, perfectly within his rights to commute Libby's sentence, or even pardon him outright.  Even we in the opposition party cannot deny that this is one of the privileges granted to the president by the Constitution, and he doesn't have to justify it to anyone.  The issue here, it seems to me, is that Bush has chosen once again to try to cast the blame elsewhere.  If he had said, for example, "Libby is a good friend and was a faithful servant to this administration, and because of that I don't want him to go to jail," we would have been irritated, but I think we would have been able to respect his honesty.  But instead, Bush's announcement tried to spin the facts to justify the commutation. That is where he crossed the line, in my opinion.

It's exactly the same situation as in the Alberto Gonzales case.  The Attorney General has the legal power to fire US Attorneys.  They serve at his whim.  He can fire them for whatever reasons he wants -- legal missteps, ethics violations, bad choice of clothes, wrong hair color. It doesn't matter.  If the administration had said "yes, we fired those attorneys because we didn't like their political leanings," again we would have been irritated, but it would have been perfectly legal.  Instead, the administration had to spin up a false story to justify the firings, and it is that spin that got Gonzales in trouble.

Oddly enough, this is the same thing that got to Clinton.  Regardless of the morals, it is perfectly legal to have an intern provide sexual favors at the workplace, even in the White House.  Had Clinton simply been honest, instead of trying to spin things, he would not have been impeached.

Honesty.  It's quite a concept.  When did it stop being a necessary part of American politics?

The Alberto Gonzales situation is just one more piece of evidence of the utter stupidity rampant in the Bush administration. Consider.

It is not against the law for the Attorney General to fire US Attorneys. It is in his job description. They serve at his pleasure, which means he can fire them for whatever reasons he wants. Bad breath, poor dresser, incompatible political leanings, wrong eye color, doesn't matter. He can tell them to pack up and go. Had he done so, and just said "we didn't like their political affiliation", it would have ended there.

But instead, the Bush adminstration has grown so accustomed to spinning a story to justify all of their screw-ups, that they did the same thing here. They tried to tell the country that these attorneys were all fired for cause. Why would they do that? They didn't NEED cause. But for the AG to lie about it, that makes it a scandal. It is so utterly stupid, it is hard to believe.

Has it occurred to anyone that this is exactly the same thing that resulted in only the second presidential impeachment in our history? It's not illegal to get a blow job, even under your desk at work. But Clinton lied about it, and that got him impeached.

Why shouldn't the same fate await Alberto Gonzales?

I'm told that some college kids have a tradition of "suicide night", where they rent and view a whole series of very depressing movies.  The usual list includes such gems as "1984", "A Clockwork Orange", and "Brazil".

After this weekend, I feel confident that the new Disney flick "Bridge to Terabithia" could be added to this list.  For God's sake, don't take children to this movie!

It's not enough just to have a couple of sad scenes, followed by a cheerful and cleansing resolution.  Instead, this movie just keeps on bashing you with the sad stick.  (Whack) Look, this boy's home life sucks.  (Whack) Look, his school life is utter torture.  (Whack) Look, all the kids hate him.  (Whack) Look, his mother likes his sisters better. (Whack) Look, his dad doesn't like him either.  (Whack) Look, he lost a foot race to a girl.  (Whack) Look, he gets blamed for things he didn't do.  (Whack) Look, he betrays his only friend in the world.  (Whack) Just when he finally does make a friend, she dies.

Holy moly.  If there were any redeeming aspects to this movie, I must have missed them.  It was a complete downer from beginning to end.  They should have therapists on call standing outside the theater.

No stars from me.

Measure 48 is a constitutional amendment which will severely limit increases in state spending.  Oregon does its budgeting in two-year cycles.  Currently, the budget for the upcoming two-year period is limited to 8% of the projected personal income in the state over that period.  This measure would cap the increase in spending from one biennium to the next, to the sum of inflation plus the increase in state population over the last biennium.

The worst thing about this measure, in my opinion, is the way proponents are cheerfully describing it as the "Rainy Day Amendment".  The amendment does not stop the state from collecting 8% of projected personal income, it merely prevents the state from spending it.  The excess would, supposedly, go into a "rainy day fund".

Can you imagine anything more stupid than having the state collect money that it is constitutionally prevented from spending?

The biggest problem is that the limited increase is simply not enough to fund the services that Oregonians demand.  If this measure passes, the state would have to eliminate $2.2 billion in spending by June of 2007, and almost $5 billion from the 2007-2009 biennium.  We simply cannot afford that.  Key public services will have to be shut down.  Similar measures have crippled other states.

Please, people.  Do not let yourself be soothed by the deceitful and cheery ads for the "Rainy Day Amendment."  READ the measure, READ the financial impact statement, READ the arguments.  Then, vote NO on Measure 48.

Measure 47 is the second of two measures on the ballot this fall designed to limit campaign contributions.  This is an act, not a constitutional amendment, and so has to measure up to a lower bar.

However, there is a problem here.  As written, this measure is unconstitutional.  It violates Oregon's free speech guarantees, which are among the strongest such guarantees in the nation.  The authors of the measure know this.  That's why they have also proffered Measure 46, which is a constitutional amendment to curtail free speech rights regarding campaign contributions.

The big problem here is that no one knows quite what will happen if 46 fails and 47 passes.  In that case, the state Supreme Court will strike down several sections of Measure 47, and the sections which are left will have consequences that cannot be foreseen at this time. That's foolhardy and dangerous.

Indeed, at least one of the authors of Measure 47 has realized the danger and is now campaigning against the measure.  His is one of the paid arguments against in the voter's pamphlet.

No unintended consequences.  Vote no on Measure 47.

Measure 46 is one of two measures on the ballot this fall intended to limit campaign contributions.  This one is a constitutional amendment, and as I have said in the past, proposed amendments need to meet a very high bar. This one does not do so.

Personally, I haven't made up my own mind on whether campaign contributions need more limitations than they currently have.  I hate the rash of negative advertising, but limiting contributions just means that only the rich could afford to run.

The key problem with this proposed amendment is that it is way too broad. It authorizes the legislature to enact laws prohibiting contributions and expenditures of ANY TYPE OR DESCRIPTION intended to influence the outcome of ANY election.  That doesn't mention money.  This could very easily be used, for example, to prohibit candidate endorsements in newspaper editorials.  It could easily be used to prohibit me from making these very blog postings.

No.  Constitutional amendments must be specific, carefully worded, and clearly beneficial to the state as a whole.  This one is NOT.

Vote no on Measure 46.

Measure 45 would institute term limits for state legislators.  Representatives would be limited to six years, senators would be limited to eight years, and no one could serve a combined total of more than 14 years.

I don't know who came up with the bright idea that fresh faces make better legislation, but it is patently false.  Oregon had a term limit law in the 1990s until the state Supreme Court invalidated it, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Politics is not a game where you bring in a new shooter to try his hand at manipulating the lives of millions.  Politics is a job, and it's a job where you get better at it as time goes on.  I want someone who has had the time to observe the workings of the legislature, and knows how to wrangle a compromise to get something done.  Bulls in China shops don't do that.

This is a Bad Idea.  Vote NO on Measure 45.

Now HERE is the one great idea in this year's batch of initiative measures.

Oregon has a prescription drug program which allows participants in the Oregon medical program (usually low income folks) to get prescription drugs at a significant discount. The discount comes by having the state do the purchasing in bulk; pharmacies are always willing to give a discount to group buyers.

Measure 44 would open this opportunity up to any Oregonian without medical insurance. There is no cost to the state, no bureaucratic impact, no additional employees. More people means more buying power, which means more opportunities for discount. It is a win-win like we don't usually see on election day.

Vote YES on Measure 44.

Measure 43 would require that a medical provider give 48-hour written notice to the parents of a 15- to 17-year-old before performing an abortion. Violations would be punishable by discipline or lawsuit.

This is one of the most controversial measures on our ballot. I am against this proposal. Proponents make heart-string-tugging arguments about how no minor should be alone when making the decision to have an abortion, and how parents have a right to know.

However, they make those arguments as if 15-to-17-year-olds were somehow PREVENTED from contacting their parents in this situation right now. That's just not true. I would be surprised if abortion providers did not ask "have you talked with your parents about this?" If the girl is consciously going through such an important procedure without the advice of her parent, then it's quite likely that she has very good reasons to exclude them. I don't see that it is the state's responsibility to second guess this, and possibly make an already bad situation even worse.

Let us make no mistake about it. This is not about protecting kids. This is just the pro-lifers pushing the envelope one more step towards a total ban on abortions. Eat it away a little bit at a time until we don't realize that the right has been completely eliminated.

No on measure 43.

Measure 42 would prohibit insurance companies from using your credit score as a criterion in determining your premiums.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the consumer in me sees it an invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, I can see why the insurance companies do this; there is a certain intuitive sense in asserting that people with good credit ratings tend to be better insurance risks. The whole point of insurance is that people who are higher risk pay a higher premium.

There are already certain protections in place in Oregon. The insurance company must tell you that they are going to get a credit score, and there are strong restrictions on what they can do with that information.

Based on that, this measure does not pass my "really good idea" criterion. No on measure 42.

Measure 41 would change the way personal tax exemptions are handled on Oregon's income tax form. Today, you get a fixed tax credit per dependent. With Measure 41, we would take a deduction equal to the Federal tax deduction.

This is nothing but pure greed. It's just a way to give the state less money to do the things we expect it to do. Our individual state tax bills would be less, but our Federal tax would go up because of it.

There is just no good reason for this. No on measure 41.

Measure 40 would change the way Oregon elects its Supreme Court and Court of Appeals justices. Today, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court positions are elected statewide. If 40 passes, these positions would be elected on a district basis, and there would be a residency requirements to run in a specific district.

The theory, apparently, is that the current system ends up electing judges mostly from the most populous (and hence urban) parts of the state, in the Willamette Valley, and folks in the rural areas are supposed to be upset about it. Frankly, I find that argument insulting. Unlike legislators, judges are supposed to be basing their opinions on the law, not on what "the folks back home" talk about over eggs and bacon down at the diner. Theoretically, a judge from Lakeview would make the same basic decisions as a judge from Eugene.

Why should it be a surprise that most judges come from the most populous areas? Statistically speaking, that is exactly what you would expect. Further, most judges are lawyers, and most attorney jobs are going to be in the urban areas.

By enforcing these district restrictions, we are effectively saying that we don't want the best candidates for these positions if they happen to live in the wrong spot. This is a Bad Idea.

No on measure 40.

Measure 39 would prohibit a public body from condemning private property if it intends to convey all or part of the land to a private party.

On the face of it, this seems like a good thing. However, this is attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. Unlike the east coast, where a certain amount of corruption is accepted as a part of life, even the proponents of Measure 39 have not been able to identify a single instance of abuse of condemnation in Oregon that this measure would have prevented. The Oregon constitution already requires fair compensation to landowners when land is condemned, and this process has worked for us.

Further, as it is written, this measure could make it more difficult and more expensive for cities and counties to acquire land for their normal business activities.

Those unintended consequences are a danger in any measure like this, which is one reason why I say that a measure must pass a rather high standard. This measure does not pass that standard.

No on measure 39.

Oregonians have 10 statewide initiative measures on their ballot this fall, almost all of which should be allowed to slink back into obscurity.

Initiative measures should need to pass a high standard in order to be enacted by the populace. A measure needs to be more than just a fairly good idea. It needs to be a REALLY good idea. Constitutional amendments need to pass an even higher standard; the constitution is the fundamental document that governs the way our lives are run in this state.

After reading through the statewide measures, the Committee for Rational Thinking urges a "no" vote across the board, except for the prescription drug plan, Measure 44. Over the next few days, I hope to write essays documenting my objections to each measure one by one.

I especially despise the advertisements in which slick marketing campaigns to try to convince you that the measure is something it is not, in order to sway those voters who do not pay attention. The worst of the crowd this time is Measure 48, the State Financial Straightjacket amendment, which proponents are cheerfully casting as the "Rainy Day Amendment". The only reason that name is applicable is because of the rain of tears that will fall because of the severe cutbacks that will be required should this amendment pass, but I'll get to that later.

It also frustrates me that every non-incumbent wants to elect them so they can "turn things around" and "enact REAL change" and "combat politics as usual". Those sound like wonderful catchphrases, but is that what we really want? Personally, I think Oregon works pretty well now. Yes, there are some things we need to tweak, and some adjustments we need to make in several key areas, but I'm not sure I want "REAL change". Further, politics is a game of compromise. The only way to get anything done in legislature is to learn how to compromise -- how to play the game of politics. When we elect someone who wants to "combat politics as usual", what we're really electing is someone who doesn't understand how the game is played. That, in turn, means that they won't be able to get anything done.

What I'm asking is that each Oregon really use their heads to understand the issues -- to look through the slogans and catchphrases and find out what each decision really means.

After kind of a dry spell, in which I had drifted over to Leno, I was drawn back to Letterman this week. There were two things about last night's show that struck me.

The first one is the ventriloquists. I know they have made a big hullaballoo about "Ventriloquist Week" for quite some time, generally turning it into a farce, but in my opinion, they should make this an annual thing. These guys are some of the most talented performers in the business. Willie Tyler and Lester -- I can remember watching him on the Flip Wilson Show almost 40 years ago, and he is still as entertaining as he ever was. I'm really looking forward to Jeff Dunham and Walter; I've caught his schtick on Comedy Central several times.

The second one is Dr. Phil, making yet another appearance with Letterman. I really like the interplay between these two guys. Dr. Phil has a good comeback for every barb that Letterman throws. But the high point of the segment, for me, was when they talked about Letterman's concerns about his son. I thought it revealed an openness and a tender side that Letterman rarely shows.

Our family just returned from an 8-day journey to Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida. Since I got so much help from forums and blogs before I left, I wanted to offer our experiences and comments.

It is difficult to imagine how incredibly vast WDW is. The official documents say it is 47 square miles, but the number doesn't really tell the story. There are 4 theme parks, two water parks, 6 golf courses, about 25 large resort hotels and a number of vast lakes, and yet it is still mostly empty space. For comparison, the "urban sprawl" area of the city of San Jose, CA, is 61 square miles.

One of the first major decisions you have to make is where to stay. Each of the Disney resorts is themed, and few people are better than maintaining an immersive theme experience than Disney. We have two teenagers, so we wanted three beds. At the time we called, three months in advance, the only resort that could guarantee us bunks was the cabins at the Fort Wilderness campground. We like the cabin experience, so we chose that. Fort Wilderness is about 2/3 RV park and 1/3 cabins. The cabins are about the size of a single-wide mobile home (which they might actually be), and were plenty big enough for our family. It had a full kitchen, and a large patio with barbecue.

If you do plan a WDW vacation, start planning your meals early. I had seen the notes saying that one could make reservations up to 180 days in advance, but I merely chuckled at that. I started two weeks out, thinking I was ahead of the game. I was dead wrong. When I called, all three of the dinner shows (Hoop-De-Doo Revue, Mickey's Backyard BBQ, Spirit of Aloha) were completely sold out, all week long. In fact, of all of the "table service" restaurants we wanted, only one was available for dinner at all. By persistent calling, we did manage to get Hoop-De-Doo tickets, but the rest of the table service meals we ate were at lunch.

I've made each day a separate blog posting, and the file times should allow them to appear in order. Here are links to the entries:

Sunday, Arrival
Monday, Magic Kingdom
Tuesday, MGM Studios
Wednesday, Blizzard Beach and Hoop-De-Doo Revue
Thursday, Epcot Center
Friday, Typhoon Lagoon and Downtown Disney
Saturday, Animal Kingdon
Sunday, wrap-up and go home

Three days after the UK terrorist scare. We were worried that we might have to fly naked. As it turns out, other than the inconvenience of not being able to take sodas, lattes, and contact lens solution on the plane, the security process wasn't significantly different from the last time I flew.

We used the "Disney Magical Express" service to get from the airport. We put special tags on the luggage, and Disney folks pick it up for us and take it straight to the room. This allowed us to concentrate on getting checked in and finding our way around. However, when using this option, be aware that your luggage does not travel on the same bus that you do! We arrived at the Orlando airport at 8:15 PM, and were finally in our cabin by 9:45 PM. However, our luggage was not delivered until 2:20 AM the next morning. Since we could not take toothpaste or contact lens solution on the airplane, this left us in an uncomfortable situation.

When I was charting out our days, it turns out I fell into a trap that nearly everyone falls into: I scheduled the parks in the order they opened. That is, Magic Kingdom, then Epcot, then MGM Studios, then Animal Kingdom. This pattern is so common that Monday is the Magic Kingdom's busiest day, Tuesday is Epcot's busiest day, and so on. Fortunately, the meal problems we encountered forced us to scramble that schedule a bit.

However, we did start our week at the Magic Kingdom. It was much less crowded than we expected. A cast member told me later that the park attendance for the first part of the week was about half of their usual number, and they weren't sure why.

Being Disneyland veterans, the Magic Kingdom was familiar to us. We did our favorites: Pirates of the Caribbean, Thunder Mountain Railroad, Space Mountain, It's A Small World. I made the kids sit through the Hall of Presidents, which I remembered from the early Disneyland days. The animatronics have improved; it is hard to remember that those are not real people sitting on the stage.

Our first Disney meal was a fast-food lunch at the Starlight Cafe in Tomorrowland. We happened to catch a special Disney promotion that saved us a boatload of money. By booking a 7-day stay at a Disney resort, we got the "Disney Dining Plan" for free. This gets you one snack, one counter service meal, and one table service meal per person per day. This is a fabulous deal. We tracked the actual prices during the week, and found that we would have spent just under $1,300 on meals had we not had this plan.

As a general rule, the counter service (fast food) meals end up averaging $13 per person, and table service meals average from $30 to $45 per person.

The Disney meals are expensive, but the food is good, and unquestionably plentiful. On the dining plan, each meal includes an appetizer, an entree, and a dessert. When dining out, we almost never order appetizers or desserts, so right off the bat we were getting more food than usual. Plus, the entrees are large. We spent most of the week stuffed to the gills. At that first lunch, my 13-year-old son got a double bacon cheeseburger, and could not finish the brownie. We had to take it with us.

As it turns out, we got so much food at the meals that we barely used the snacks. By Friday, we still had 20 of our 28 snack credits unused. The snack credits can be used to buy drinks and packaged snacks as well, so we used the last on items to take with us to the airport.

We had our first table service dinner at Tony's Town Square, themed after the restaurant where Lady and the Tramp have their spaghetti and meat ball supper. This was a delightful place, and the food was great. We got seafood, steak, and pasta, and all of it was very good.

One of the advantages of staying at Fort Wilderness is that one can take a boat to the Magic Kingdom. The boats were less crowded and more relaxed than the busses or monorail.

We spent our second day at the Disney MGM Studios. I think this was my favorite of the four theme parks. We did the (Trip through the Movies?), which we all enjoyed. The "tour guide" leaves the vehicle partway through and rejoins later. We did the Indiana Jones stunt show on fast pass, which is well worth the wait. Excellent. We did Star Tours, which I had seen in California. I really liked the Tower of Terror. We also watched the stage show of Beauty and the Beast, which was well done. We did the

We went to the 50's Prime Time Cafe for lunch. The theme here is the TV generation of the 1950's situation comedies. Your experience here depends strongly on your waiter. If he or she plays the part well, and scolds your party for manners violations, it can be really fun. The menu is your basic comfort food. The meat loaf was great. We had warned my son about the elbows on the table thing, and at one point, when the waiter walked in the room, he suddenly sat up straight when he realized his elbows were on the table.

We did dinner at the ABC Commissary. Because we were so stuffed from lunch, we didn't start looking for dinner until after 7. By that time, most of the quick service places have closed. Be warned that your choices go way down after 7 PM, even though the park itself is open until 9 PM.

Today, we headed to the Blizzard Beach water park. I was really looking forward to the water parks, and I thought Blizzard Beach looked to be the more fun of the two. The lockers are small; be prepared to get one small per person, or one large per two people.

My family talked me into floating around the "cross country creek", which runs all the way around the park. You get in and get out wherever you want. This was fun and relaxing, but it meant that we didn't get into the water slide lines until later in the morning. We ended up waiting a long time for one of the two premiere slides (the "Slush Gusher"), and it was over in 30 seconds. We spent the rest of the time in the wave pool.

In the evening, we had reservations for the Hoop-De-Doo Revue back at Fort Wilderness. This was a hoot and a half. We all enjoyed it immensely. The cast of performers are all right out of vaudeville. It looks like it's about one third improvised. They get the audience involved in many ways, all of them hilarious. Plus, the food is great (ribs, fried chicken, beans, corn, salad, cornbread, strawberry shortcake), and it is all you can eat and drink. The waiters are very attentive, and took care of every need promptly.

The Hoop-De-Doo takes two "table service" credits per person. Several people commented that this was not a good deal, and I have to say I agree. A nice table service meal ran about $45 per person (with tax and mandatory 18% tip), and the Hoop-De-Doo runs $50.22 per person.

We relaxed in the cabin after the show. I was surprised to find that they charged $10 per day for high-speed Internet. You'd think that, for $250 a night, they could give me the darned cable modem connection for free.

Today was our Epcot day, and we seemed to catch up to the crowds. We only made it through half of the Future World, and breezed through the International World very quickly. We did do Soarin', which I had done in California and really enjoyed. I believe we did all of the rides in the "Land" pavilion.

The Circlevision 360 movie in the Canada pavilion is worth the effort. I have always liked the Circlevision 360 movies, where the movie is played on movie screens all around the top of the theater, clear back to the old "America the Beautiful" movie at Disneyland. This one was every bit as good.

We had table service lunch at Coral Reef, in the "Living Seas" pavilion. One entire wall of the restaurant is a glassed-window view into the huge aquarium in "Living Seas". It was quite beautiful, although it was rather loud. The food was OK, but there are so many other good choices at Epcot that I wouldn't do it again.

I do want to offer one caution to people using forums as a resource. I had found a menu for Coral Reef that showed lobster tail and filet mignon. Since my daughter is nuts for lobster, we were looking forward to that. It turns out that, when they changed the pricing on the Disney dining plan a few months ago, they changed all of the menus. No more lobster, and the filet was replaced by a New York strip.

Epcot is really a bonanza for foodies. All of the international pavilions have at least one restaurant, and sometimes as many as three. For dinner, my kids went to the teriyaki place in the Japanese pavilion, and my wife and I got brats at the German pavilion. My kids, who do a lot of teriyaki meals, said it was one of the best they'd ever had. The brat was good as well, but I wish I could have been in the Biergarten...

Today, we split up. My son and I wanted to go to the other water park, Typhoon Lagoon. The girls had had enough water, and wanted to go shopping at Downtown Disney.

I have to say that Typhoon Lagoon is, hands down, the better of the two water parks. We got there during the "extra magic hour"; guests of the resort can get in an hour before the general public. That was GREAT! We managed to go down 4 water slides each in the first 40 minutes, and they were all fun. By then, I was huffing and puffing pretty good, so we floated around their "lazy river", and then went into the wave pool.

The wave pool at Typhoon Lagoon is incredible. Their wave generator makes a surfing-quality wave that is at least 8 feet high, which actually breaks as it approaches shore. A number of people actually did body surfing, quite successfully. After running the 8 footers for a while, they switch to a different wave generator that makes, basically, "moguls". It was fun and challenging. I would go back there.

After that, my son and I headed to Downtown Disney for table service lunch at Captain Jacks. This was one of the better meals we had at WDW. I wish we could have been there for dinner instead; they told us the dinner menu is quite a bit better.

We spent the rest of the afternoon at Downtown Disney. We eventually made our way up to the "West End" and spent a few hours in Disney Quest, which is basically a 5-story video arcade. My kids had a fabulous time there. I was worn out from Typhoon Lagoon, so I actually napped for a while in the cafe...

When we got back to the cabin, it was still relatively early -- about 7 PM. It was "extra magic hour" day at Epcot, which means it stays open from 9 PM to midnight for resort guests, so we decided to head down to Epcot to catch the parts we missed. This turned out to be a joke. EVERYBODY heads down to whatever park is open for the "extra magic hours", so it was significantly MORE crowded than it had been the day before. We watched the fabulous fireworks display in the middle of the Epcot lake, and we did catch a nice counter service dinner of burgers and chicken strips at the Electric Umbrella, but we couldn't get into any of the rides. We wanted to do the Test Track, but by the time the fireworks were over, the wait was already up to 50 minutes. Only a few of the rides are open during the "magic hours", although you can bet that all of the stores are open. In fact, the "magic hour" concept appears to be primarily another way to separate you from your money. We went through the Spaceship Earth exhibit (which is a good one), and then headed home in a very exciting thunderstorm.

On our last full day, we went to the last remaining theme park: Animal Kingdom. My wife says this was her favorite part of the trip. We were able to get fastpass tickets for the Expedition to Everest, and I would love to do that again. I've never been on a roller coaster than spend much of its trip going backwards, in the dark...

We actually caught a lot of attractions at Animal Kingdom, even though it was very, very crowded. We did the 3D movie at It's Hard To Be A Bug. The best show in the whole park is the Lion King. Very impressive. You can skip the Pocahontas show; it's nothing but a short lesson in deforestation.

We did a counter service lunch at the Tusker Cafe in the Africa section. This was a pretty good fast-food lunch, with rotisserie chicken and big crispy chicken sandwiches

In the late afternoon, we headed over to MGM Studios, to catch some of the things we missed. My son wanted to buy something at the Star Wars store, and my daughter wanted something at the Indiana Jones store. We caught our last counter service dinner at the ABC Commissary again, and then the skies opened up and it started to pour down rain. My wife is always prepared, so we had plastic rain ponchos in our backpacks. The stores were doing a bang-up business in Mickey ponchos, but a lot of people were just soaked to the skin.

The advantage to the drenching rainstorm is that it clears the humidity out of the air. By the time we got back to Fort Wilderness at 9 PM or so, it was the most pleasant weather we had felt all week. My wife sent the three of us off to the pool so she could repack our suitcases in peace, and we bedded down for our last night.

We debated long and hard about what to do on Sunday. We had been go-go-going all week, and were somewhat cranky as a result. My wife wanted to return to the Magic Kingdom. My son wanted to go back to Typhoon Lagoon. However, the timing would be tricky. Our bus back to the airport was scheduled at 2:50, we had a lunch reservation at the Trail's End cafe in Fort Wilderness at 12:30, and we had to check out of the cabin no later than 11:00. The Disney transportation system is great, but it can really eat up the time.

In the end, I convinced everyone to stay in Fort Wilderness for the day. We had the pool to ourselves for quite a while.

The Trail's End Cafe at Fort Wilderness has a very good buffet. It's basically the same food you get at the Hoop De Doo Revue (in the same building, cooked in the same kitchen), plus a big salad and sandwich bar, and some additional entrees. We ate well for our last table service, because we knew we wouldn't be getting anything on the airplanes.

The most unfortunate part of the trip happened on our way out. As I said, we were scheduled to board a Disney Magical Express bus at 2:50 PM to head to the airport. The bus (#3215) was 5 minutes late, driven by a young woman. As soon as she pulled away from the bus stop, she made a wrong turn and headed into the campground instead of to the highway. Now, this is a 45' bus; you can't just take those into narrow campground roadways! Oddly enough, the DME driver who took us in told us about other drivers that had made that very mistake.

She did manage to get the bus turned around, and in the process told us that it was her first trip on this run. Oh, goodie. She then missed the bus stop locations at both of the Pojrt Orleans resorts, and had to pull out and come in again. She didn't know how to handle the luggage, and there was a huge crowd at Port Orleans Riverside waiting to board. The bus only had three stops to make, and it took an hour before we were on the road and rolling.

Once we got rolling, she pulled out her cell phone and started playing with the camera. I assume that she received a briefing about good driving practice with a busful of passengers, but apparently it didn't stick. She drifted out of her lane and nearly hit the center divide before she put the cell phone away.

So, finally we get on the freeway to the airport. As we're approaching the Orlando Airport exit, I notice that she is in the left lane, making no move to take the exit. Sure enough, as we passed the exit, I heard her mutter to herself in unkind terms that she missed the exit. Now, this is rural Orlando. It's 5 miles to the next exit, and of course, 5 miles back. When we got to the airport, she had no clue which airlines were in which terminal, and she had not written down which airlines her passengers actually needed.

Our pickup was at 2:50 PM. Our flight was at 5:40 PM. Plenty of time, right? We did not escape from the bus until 4:50 PM. Two hours travel time. The bus driver is fortunate that security was easy that day.

Cheney is giving Bush his daily briefing about the world. "And in Iraq, I'm sorry to report that three Brazilian soldiers were killed."

At this news, Bush puts his head in his hands and start moaning. "Oh, no! Oh, my God. That's terrible, dreadful news. Oh, my." He is rocking, shaking his head, seemingly crushed.

Cheney is surprised by this. "Sir, I don't think I've ever seen you react like this to casualty reports. What's going on?"

Bush looks up in surprise. "Well, how many are in a brazillion?"

I drove from Seattle to Portland yesterday down Interstate 5. I think it's cute that Washington has signs on the freeway saying "Stay Right Except to Pass". It's cute because, apparently, Washington drivers are completely unable to read them.

I've never driven in a state where the simple technique of interstate driving is so utterly and completely ignored. If you drive in Oregon outside of the "urban" areas (Portland, Salem, Eugene), you'll find traffic in the right lane, with folks pulling in to the left lane to pass, and then returning to the right, just as God intended. Not so in Washington. Those who wanted to drive just a bit faster than traffic had to weave dangerously back and forth between the lanes, while Mr. and Mrs. Oblivious sail along for miles in the left lane.

Get a clue. Outside of urban areas, you should never be in the left-most lane of an interstate unless you are in the process of passing someone. Notice that this means you must be going FASTER than the car you are trying to pass, another tidbit that escaped many of the drivers I saw yesterday.

I don't have the ultimate answers to the immigration issue that is now dividing the nation, but I am disturbed by the tenor of many of the arguments in this debate.

Many people argue that all "illegal immigrants" should be arrested or deported, simply because they are in the country in violation of our law. This somewhat self-righteous attitude presupposes that all laws are inherently good and reasonable.

Consider, for a moment, the case of Rosa Parks. Parks was arrested because of her color, for choosing the wrong seat on a public bus. This arrest was in accordance with the laws of the time. And yet, many people at the time, and certainly most people today, would agree that the fault in that dispute was with the law, and not with Mrs. Parks. I wonder if we aren't in the same situation now.

If an immigrant arrives in this country (through whatever path), settles down, finds a job, earns a living wage, pays taxes, puts his children into school, and stays out of trouble, as most do, they are doing one heck of a lot better than a substantial fraction of the native population of this country. Why shouldn't we rush to welcome such a family into the fabric of our society?

In the end, maybe a merit system is one way to solve the problem. Let all immigrants in on a conditional basis. Six months or a year later, if they can demonstrate that they are productively contributing to society, rather than acting as a drain upon it, they may apply for citizenship. If not, deportation awaits.

(Submitted to The Oregonian, May 9)

The Bush administration has shut down all American foreign aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, and is pressuring our European allies to do the same. Now, I understand the desire not to fund terrorism, and the administration certainly had the right to set our policy, but I think this decision is unwise.

Much of our foreign aid goes to corrupt governments, where the majority of the money ends up in the pockets of despots and tyrants, rather than in the hands of the people. In the case of the Palestinian Authority, this does not seem to be the case. There have been no stories of rampant corruption in their government. Further, the BBC reported that fully a third of the Palestinians rely on civil payments for their sustenance. Those people are passing desparate on their way to starvation.

What that tells me is that withholding this money is going to lead directly to Palestinian suffering, which will in turn lead to Palestinian resentment and hatred towards America. The last thing we need right now is more hatred towards America.

Further, I'm not sure what the Bush administration hopes to accomplish with this. Does he expect Hamas to say "sorry, we were just kidding, we'll back out of the government?" It's not like the Palestinian people have the authority to order new elections. Further, it's not clear that a new election would have a different result.

Indeed, one quite likely outcome is that the Palestinian Authority gets weakened to the point where it falls into chaos, leaving an opening for Israel to step in and take over. This will not be a good thing for the world.

I believe we will be sorry in the long run. America should reinstate its foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority.

I've been participating in mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups for a very long time -- more than 25 years. In that time, I have learned many very good things, and I've read many very stupid posts. I have seen quite innocent comments explode out of proportion into completely unnecessary flamefests that have resulted in years of hurt feelings. Some of this comes from poor communcation skills; some of it comes from language differences; some of it simply comes from differing personalities.

Here is a list of some of the things I've learned that can make a newsgroup or mailing list experience more pleasant for all.

1. It is not necessary to reply to every message, nor even to most messages. Do not think of the group as a chat room; think of it as a daily newspaper that happens to have lots of guest columnists.
2. A message should provide some value. Messages like "Quite right" and "Me, too" and "Probably so" and "Nuff said" do not provide value. It is arguable whether THIS message provides any value...
3. Assume the worst when writing a message. Read every message you write BEFORE you send it as if it had been written by your worst enemy, and see how many things could be misconstrued. Corollary: almost everything can (and will) be misconstrued, usually in the most unflattering way possible.
4. Assume the best when reading a message. Since most people will not heed rule #3, you should search for the positive connotations in most messages, not the negative ones. A person who writes an opinion you happen to disagree with is not your worst enemy, even when they express their stupid opinions very strongly.
5. Every newsgroup and mailing list has its culture. Some groups are inherently friendly to newbies and stupid questions. Some groups react quite violently to them. Some groups silently tolerate top-posting. Some groups react quite violently to it.
6. Watch and observe a new group or list for several days before making your first post. Learn who is helpful, and who are the troublemakers. Learn which kinds of posts receive scorn, and which receive assistance.
7. Usenet is not a real-time medium. Unlike forums and mailing lists, Usenet is not centrally managed. When you submit a newsgroup post, it gets sent ONLY to your news server. From there, it gets forwarded to the next server down the line, whenever those two servers make their next regularly scheduled connection. That server forwards it on to other news servers. There are hundreds of thousands of news servers around the world, and it can take most of a day before your post makes it. And THEN, some human being has to fire up their newsreader, fetch the new messages, and read it. When they respond, their response goes through the same tortured, windy path as your original. Bottom line: do NOT expect two-hour turnaround to your requests for help on your homework.
8. Don't take it personally. Many readers -- especially younger folks -- tend to read assertive or critical messages as if they were aimed directly at them. In virtually every case, this is not true. We've never met; I have no clue whether we would like each other or not, but whether we do or not is irrelevant. Until proven otherwise, we are professional colleagues trying to further our collective knowledge, not children trying to establish social supremacy at the lunch table.
9. No one knows everything, but some people do know more than others -- sometimes a LOT more. There are a surprising number of people on most lists and groups who truly are world-renowned experts in their field. Posts from those people deserve a little extra consideration, especially since they often do not follow rule #3 above. Do not dismiss a controversial opinion without first figuring out whether the speaker deserves consideration. By the same token, do not take every post as recognized fact without first figuring out whether the speaker deserves consideration.
10. In the world of Google, newsgroup and mailing list posts now last forever. Be careful about stating your own personal opinions as if they were facts. By the same token, do not be irritated if someone posts a seemingly trivial correction to your message. Next year, some innocent newbie will go searching for information on the same topic, and it will be much better for him or her if all opinions are represented.

Oregon's income tax kicker is misguided and counterproductive.

Many of the items that I've read from taxpayers defending the kicker are demands that the state return "their" money. I simply do not understand this thinking. Oregon's income tax rate is 9% (ignoring that this is a marginal tax rate, so no one actually pays anywhere near this rate). That fraction represents our "fair share" -- the cost of providing the services that we, as Oregonians, have demanded over the years, and the dues we pay for not having to live in, say, Alabama or Uzbekistan. Why should anyone expect his "fair share" to go down just because more people paid taxes than expected, or because corporations made more taxable profits than usual? My share is 9% of my income. Your share is 9% of your income. The expectation that your share should somehow be reduced simply because someone else paid more than expected is nothing but personal greed.

Oregon is now gaining about 40,000 new residents each year. If we were to get 50,000 new residents this year, and those 10,000 unexpected immigrants begin paying income taxes, that would raise revenue above projections. However, Oregon still has the responsibility to provide roads, schools, driver's licenses, and police protection for those 10,000 people. It is unreasonable for taxpayers to demand that the taxes from those 10,000 new residents be paid back to them, while still expecting the state to provide services for those new residents.

The American Red Cross got a huge influx of money in 2005, much more than they budgeted at the beginning of the year. Should we demand that they return that money to donors because revenue exceeded their budget? No, of course not. They need that money to pay for services provided during the recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, among other things. And yet, this is exactly what we ask of the State of Oregon.

When a family gets an unexpected windfall above and beyond their expected income, such as an inheritance, or a lottery win, or a juicy raise at work, do we ask them to return money to everyone who paid them? No, of course not. We expect them to invest that windfall in some kind of a savings account, to compensate for the eventual "rainy day", when their income does not cover their expenses. And yet, the "kicker" law prevents the State of Oregon from implementing that kind of common sense savings strategy.

When revenues fall below estimates, we all expect the state to come up with the money to provide the services we demand. And yet, because of the kicker law, we refuse to allow the state to tuck away any unexpected windfall in an account to cover the inevitable downturn.

It has been said that a democracy can only last until its citizens realize that they can vote to write themselves checks from the public treasury. With both Measure 37 and the debate over the kicker law, we're now seeing this kind of thinking permeate Oregon's voters. Don't let greed become the primary driving force in Oregon. Do the right thing -- eliminate the kicker.

(Submitted to The Oregonian, March 13)

Being a command-line dinosaur, I use gvim for all of my editing, both on Windows and Linux. I handle projects for a number of different clients, and each of those clients has their own standards for tabbing, indentation, line length, and so on. One of the things I have missed in vim is the ability to have project-specific settings that cover an entire directory tree.

Well, with a few minutes of searching today, I discovered a way to do this. Vim has the ability to have certain commands executed based on the file name pattern; that's how it does syntax coloring, for instance. It turns out that this pattern matching is flexible enough to handle my case. I added this to my global _vimrc:

autocmd BufRead,BufNewFile c:/dev/client1/* so /dev/client1/_vimrc
autocmd BufRead,BufNewFile c:/dev/client2/* so /dev/client2/_vimrc
autocmd BufRead,BufNewFile c:/dev/client3/* so /dev/client3/_vimrc

Works as pretty as you please.

I encountered a blog this week that has caused me great confusion. I cannot tell whether this is the work of a paranoid lunatic, or a piece of performance art. I strongly suspect it is the latter -- a great joke on the technorati, hoping to sucker people like me into offering unneeded reassurance and helpful advice.

http://www.tagmeme.com/exmachina/subhack/

If it is a joke, it is one of the most elaborate I have ever encountered, and she suckered me in completely. If it is not a joke, then the author needs some professional counselling and a better grade of drugs.

You decide.

I have two comments about the reaction of the radical Muslim world to the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.

My first comment is to repeat that gem of grade school, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." You're entitled to dislike those depictions. You're even entitled to be offended by them. But let us remember that no one was harmed, no one was killed, and no property was destroyed by the publication of the cartoons.

My second comment is to point out the utter irony of the reaction. Those radical fundamentalists who are rioting, pillaging, threatening, and encouraging harm and death are doing nothing more than validating the depiction in the cartoon. When someone sees you or depicts you in a particular way, and you find that depiction disagreeable, the proper reaction is to step back and ask yourself, "Why do they think that? Are they wrong, or am I actually showing to the world a face that I do not want to show?" When Mr. A says to Mr. B, "you're too violent", and Mr. B responds by knocking Mr. A to the ground, Mr. B has not done a very good job of contradicting Mr. A's assertion.