If you read this blog through an RSS reader or other syndication tool, you're probably going to have to reconfigure it tomorrow or whenever I get the new design up. If there's a way to get the new software to output the RSS feed to the same address, I don't know what it is and I have enough to do without trying to learn that. Check back here when we're up and running for the new RSS address. I have no plans at the moment to support any other such readers.
Todd S. Purdum on the joys of flip-flopping. There's not a lot wrong with a politician changing his or her mind as long as they acknowledge it's a change, explain why and don't bounce back and forth too often.
From Bill Turner comes this about this link I posted...
Back on Dec. 27 you posted a link to a blog posting arguing against any ban on using a cell phone while driving. The major point of that post was that it dismissed the case against it as based solely on anecdotes. To be fair, you might want to include a link to this article talking about the suppression of the very real evidence of how harmful this is. And if you spend a minute looking, you'll also find plenty of scientific research on "multitasking" with the vast preponderance of the evidence showing that people don't really multitask, we switch back and forth among tasks with considerable loss of efficiency (and that's brain processing efficiency) when doing so.
I find the anti-cell-phone-ban arguments to be strikingly like the anti-global warming arguments: if it would mean I can't do something I want to do, I won't look at your evidence no matter what, you're just wrong, that's all, because obviously the world was designed for my personal convenience or profit. It's much easier to assert that the "evidence" is false, anecdotal, a conspiracy, whatever, than to admit that I'm doing something harmful to others.
In fact, the comments on the article I gave the link to are pretty much all of this nature. Mostly people either want no ban, or a ban against everything except what they personally do, because what they do is safe/necessary/economically important/whatever.
I don't doubt that cell phone usage makes auto accidents more likely and I'd like to know more about "how likely" and how it's determined that a given crash was caused by someone being on their phone. While I didn't go through every line of the 266 page report listed, it does make the point repeatedly that any driver distraction increases the likelihood of a collision and I'd like to know more about how cell phone usage stacks up against distractions like listening to the radio, talking to a passenger and eating the fries you bought at the In-N-Out drive-thru.
The report also suggests that drivers not use cell phones except in an emergency and that strikes me as a pretty useless way to discuss the topic. If we pass a law that says you can only use a cell phone in case of an emergency, we're going to have to define what constitutes an emergency. Being lost? Being late? How about if I need to call Sergio and tell him to send me some info I need right away or Groo may be a day late? Is that an emergency?
I'm not trying to be evasive here. Yeah, cell phones make driving more dangerous. And since we've all had a taste of how convenient they can be in normal life, you're not going to ban them unless a pretty strong case can be made that they're worse than a lot of things, like listening to audio books, that no one wants to ban. I'd also love to hear how such a ban could be enforced. What do the countries that do have such a ban do? Do they prohibit other distractions? I don't think this report should have been suppressed. It should have been taken seriously and triggered more research. But a proper case for a ban has not yet been made.
For an array of personal reasons, I haven't been back to New York since April of 2008 and it'll be a while before I get back there again. This means I'm missing a lot of great theater I'd like to see on and around Broadway. One show I'd really like to see is the new revival of Follies which stars Bernadette Peters, Jan Maxwell, Danny Burstein, Ron Raines and Elaine Paige. By the time I get back there again, it'll probably star kids who've been fired off Glee for being too realistic. So for the time being at least, I'll have to be content with this nine-minute preview...
You may be familiar with David Feldman, who does a very funny podcast that's also heard on some N.P.R. channels. If you're not familiar with him, here's a good time to start. His New Year's Eve program features Laraine Newman, June Foray, Paul F. Tompkins, Paul Dooley, Rick Overton, Frank Conniff, Mark Thompson, Will Ryan and Chris Pina. Some very funny sketches in there.
That version includes a truncated version of the conversation with June Foray. He's also posted the whole interview and it's quite good.
Some time later today — I dunno when — this weblog will close for the year. By the time it returns — I dunno when — it will have had a makeover with a new design, new software and a few new features. Before you send me scathing e-mails telling me why the new look sucks, remember (a) what you pay to get in and (b) that I do all this myself with no help. However bad it is, it ain't bad for a guy who works on Groo the Wanderer.
During the changeover, you may see a blank page here, a half-finished page, a wrong page, a page where links don't work...things may even get so bizarre you'll see me endorse Newt Gingrich. (By the way: I just posted a Tweet that noted that Newt is now saying he's considering Sarah Palin as his running mate. Because we all saw how well that worked last time.)
I will post an "All Clear" when I think I'm finished reconfiguring and rearranging. Until then, it might be safer to not try reading anything here. We will not be responsible if you get hurt.
None of the old postings will disappear forever but the ones from between 4/23/03 and 12/20/11 will be offline for a little while.
As everyone in the known free world has informed me, this site has not been listed on Google for a few months. What happened was that a hacker installed what's called a "cloaked" site on this one. In fact, he or she installed two. The same folders on the server that contain the files for this blog were also secretly hosting the files for a site that sold fake Louis Vuitton handbags and one that sold pills that induce erections. Make up your own joke about what those things have in common. The sites were hidden in a folder hidden in a folder hidden in a folder hidden in a folder (etc.) and I didn't spot them...but Google's webcrawling spiders did. This caused them to delist the entire site.
I think I got rid of all the parasites but since some of the legit files pointed to directories containing evil pages, Google's automated sentries think those files are bad, too. That's not the only reason I'm chucking the old software. I was thinking of changing over anyway and now I have a fine reason to do it now. Let's see how long it takes me to get back in Google's good graces.
December 30, 2011
