I always, stupidly, check it before dressing in the morning. At least 50% of the time, it’s off by more than 10 degrees during the day.

Today, it said it would reach a high in SF of 73 degrees F. We’re in SOMA, a relatively warm part of the city, so I figured, if anywhere, it’ll hit 73 here. Right now, it couldn’t possibly be above 60 degrees. And the wind is somewhere between gale-force and tornado, with a temperature that suggests an origin slightly to the west of the Bering Strait.

I wore a short-sleeved shirt with an undershirt, which provides very little protection from the subarctic weather system that’s moved into the area. And since my herniated disc requires that I walk around slowly several times a day to avoid excruciating pain, I’m left choosing between staying warm & in pain, or freezing my ass off but not slipping off into pain-induced delusions.

I know this is my fault for relying on what are clearly astrologers (or maybe, if they’ve automated everything, a random-number generator) to come up with the temperature forecast. My question: is there a more reliable online weather service for the San Francisco Bay Area?

And Hillary’s 100% right that the GOP’s characterization of Democratic candidates as out-of-touch elitists has led to Dems’ downfall on more than one occasion in recent presidential contest history. And with a strong undercurrent of racism that stuffs black people into an impossible box (too uneducated and they’re worthless n-words, and too educated and they’re uppity), Obama especially has to tread this line very, very carefully. (His cost of arugula and gun- and religion-clinging comments have probably already ensconced him in the latter category in the minds of many voters)

I’ve seen or read a number of statements by Obama that use language that flies over the heads of the less-educated, and probably irritate them. Now, Hillary Clinton, who has almost the same level of education as Obama and is certainly as intelligent, has yet managed to simplify her message consistently into bite-sized linguistic morsels that retired factory workers can digest.

And it’s not just the blue-collar folks. Hispanics, whom for many English is a second language, are generally less likely to understand someone speaking in a more elite register. They might also resent a black man who bucks the social order.

So, until the campaign season is over, I would like to recommend Sen Obama to use the following reverse thesaurus - it might help him change that honorific to President by January 2009. The words were taken from recent comments, debates & interviews:

• accelerate -> speed up
• amplify -> say louder [sic]
• anguished -> painful
• as a consequence of -> because of
• ascribe -> figure out
• assessments -> judgments
• begrudge -> have hard feelings about
• beneficiary -> receiver
• candor -> honesty
• cataloguing -> reminding
• conceivable -> possible
• deferred -> put off
• defines -> clearly shows
• deplorable -> disgusting
• deplore -> am disgusted by
• dismissive -> uninterested, disinterested [sic]
• essentially -> basically, really
• forcefully -> really strongly
• fretful -> worried
• handily -> pretty well, pretty good [sic]
• host (as in a whole host of areas) -> lot, bunch
• in concert -> together
• increments -> amounts
• initiate -> make
• irony -> the funny thing
• jarring -> beyond the pale
• made a determination -> figured out
• measured -> careful
• mindful -> aware
• notion -> idea
• objectionable -> disgusting, horrible, terrible
• observations -> things you see
• offer assurances -> make commitments
• oftentimes -> often
• oppressed -> treated badly
• perpetrators of mass violence -> terrorists, mass-murdering Islamofascists
• premised -> based
• prophylactic -> vaccine
• provide context -> explain
• provision -> something
• purposeful -> on purpose
• reflection (fig.) -> picture
• reflective of -> reminds us of
• show no inclination -> show no sign
• skewed -> biased, distorted
• substantial -> huge
• tangential -> irrelevant, unimportant
• temperament -> mood
• unfortunate -> pathetic, pitiful
• vernacular -> language
• vigorously -> strongly
• well-regarded -> liked a lot

Notice I replaced milder language (”unfortunate”, “substantial”) with stronger words (”disgusting”, “huge”) - Obama has this professorial way of tempering his language that makes it look like he’s studying our country’s problem for an article he’s writing for Foreign Affairs, instead of being incensed by them enough to want to do something about them. He needs to look and act like he’s pissed off every now and then, or people won’t get that gut feel like he’ll really fight for them for things that matter for them.

Philosophically, I’m a Taoist. Taoism believes that everything in the universe is in constant flux. Things ebb and flow, wax and wane, increase and decrease, with regularity. As soon as things seem the most awful, they get better; as soon as things hit a peak, they slip. So it seems like the rising and falling fortunes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on this neverending campaign for the Democratic nomination don’t have any end in sight.

There is something either about the way campaigns continually fine-tune where concessions to voter groups and concerns each give and take market share towards a 50:50 stalemate. I’ve heard the US electoral system described as similar to a parliamentary system, except coalition building is done before the election rather than after. This would seem to explain candidates constantly courting new groups, and why we all seem to have some reason to get pissed off at a candidate (we gays got pissed off when Obama brought some homophobe on a campaign tour last year, but by doing so, he probably gained enough additional votes among gay-hating black bible-thumpers to offset those gays who defected).

I have another theory, which I feel is equally valid. Americans are stubborn and hate to be told their decision is a foregone conclusion. There is something about a candidate enjoying the lead that makes part of us root for the underdog. No sooner do pundits proclaim a candidate as having “unstoppable momentum” than voters suddenly find renewed interest in the other guy/gal. There is a tipping point at which people do throw their weight behind the front-runner, but that’s only when people really do collectively agree that the contest is over (or they’re bored and want to move on). Before that, though, each surge seems to immediately sap its own strength.

All of this seems to explain why Americans are always split 50-50 on everything; there are a few things going on that reinforce an equilibrium in the political sphere, that always guarantee that half of us are pissed off at the way things are going. I find it somewhat amusing that Hillary and Obama are neck-and-neck, and equal numbers of Obama and Hillary supporters say they’d rather vote for McCain than the other Democratic nominee should the candidate they support not win the nomination (let’s hope they’re bluffing, something entirely plausible considering how childishly pouty a people we are).

The only thing I find reassuring about this is that, at least, an anti-Christ or modern-day Hitler will never drum up enough support in this country. We are never of one mind, and truly resist efforts to comply with conventional wisdom. There is something genuinely, if oddly, reassuring about that, even if the relentless bickering can sometimes wear on your nerves.

Four months ago, I was leaning heavily towards voting for Hillary. I wasn’t into “Obamamania”, and Hillary seemed like a realist. I also agreed that universal health care was the top domestic priority.

I ended up voting for Obama on Super Tuesday, because I thought he would be a stronger contender against McCain in November, but I still harbored sympathies for ol’ Hill.

The last couple of months have shown a side to her character that I find more than distasteful - they’re dangerous. Someone with such a poor relationship with the truth, and who would put her ambition over the lives of so many people, is a menace and should not be occupying the highest office on the planet.

I used to bristle at Hillary-bashing, which I thought was unfair and sexist. Well, even if the motivation is wrong, I have to say I agree with it more than I’m bothered by it.

Here’s hoping Pennsylvanians sink her candidacy, so that Barack Obama can become our next president.

The Hell’s Kitchen contestants are all idiots. I mean borderline braindead.

This is in huge contrast with the other cooking reality TV show, Top Chef, where the only drooling idiot was the host, Padma. Those contestants were all exceptionally talented and, for the most part, pretty bright, too.

Not a single Hell’s Kitchen contestant seems to have an IQ above 70. And they seem to be awful cooks, too.

Which, of course, gives Gordon plenty to scream about and throw food around about.

The Kitchen Nightmares proprietors were all either clueless, braindead or just incredibly lazy. Again, plenty of reason to scream at them.

I think I’m the type of person who would rather admire reality TV contestants than get annoyed by them (real life has enough morons to deal with - I don’t enjoy dealing with them in my leisure time), so Top Chef continues to be a far more entertaining show for me than Hell’s Kitchen.

A pity none of the Bravo shows are available to watch online…

This is a country of religious evangelicals. The religious prefer not to see things the way they are, but rather how they’d like them to be. They’ll bitch for hours about how life is unfair, China and illegal immigrants giving them a raw deal, that corporate fat-cats are reducing their quality of life…but then they want to say that “the power of Christ” gives them happiness that transcends all the misery around them (it doesn’t, but that’s beside the point).

The whole reason Obama has been such a powerful figure in this election is that he presents a strong message of hope. Why the hell is he going off-message at this point of the campaign?

Stick to your message. Repeat it until people get bored - and when they get bored, get into some of the specifics of your platform. Don’t drift onto philosophical musings like John Kerry, who was quickly caricatured out winning an election by the GOP.

So this brings me to another point - that McCain is benefiting from the infighting between Clinton and Obama. He looks confident and secure, while Obama and Clinton are seen sniping at each other whenever the news covers them.

I say: Big. Fucking. Deal. It’s temporary. When the Democrats do settle on a nominee, that nominee will trounce McCain. Even if that nominee is Hillary (although that seems very, very unlikely at this point).

McCain is Bob Dole all over again. When the GOP is weak, they choose an older war hero, playing to their most solid base of cranky old white men. But the GOP is weak, it has a terrible record and everyone knows it, and McCain is not an inspirational figure whatsoever.

Yes, he showed bravery during Vietnam. And he has stood up for his beliefs on campaign finance reform since. But he has also been involved in more than one scandal during his senatorial tenure (the Keating Five and the Vicky Iselman lobbyist ones come to mind), and the fact that he had an affair, and dumped his wife in favor of a much younger woman is not going to play well with the millions of women who have had the same thing done to them.

Besides, he doesn’t project strength. He looks and sounds feeble. He confuses important things, like the Shia and Sunni in Iraq, and gets confused by other things like the economy (and then senilely forgets he admitted as much…twice). He looks like a congenial grandpa, but that’s about it. He does not inspire the cool confidence of Obama, and I know who I’d put my money on in an arm wrestle between him and Hillary.

So while it’s a rough time right now with Obama & Hillary attacking each other, and McCain seemingly enjoying a rise in popularity, it’s not going to last. We Democrats like to wring our hands and bemoan missed opportunities, but we have a short memory like the rest of this country. The nomination will happen, people will forget about the internal divisiveness and rancor within a couple of weeks, and the media will focus on the Democrat vs Republican battle through November. And there will be plenty of time to do that.

My thoughts:

1. There were a handful of people who didn’t hesitate to tell me that I was completely ignorant and was completely in the dark about Europeans. They were vastly outnumbered by those who agreed with me completely.
2. I was amused by those who confirmed exactly those national stereotypes I had written about (the indignant Greek, the xenophobic Brit, the stupid Swede…ok, I’m joking about the last one)
3. I really appreciated the insights about the Portuguese, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, ex-Yugoslavs, and others that I didn’t know enough about. (Truth be told, I’m part Croatian, and know a LOT about the ex-Yugoslavs, cak i govorim hrvatski, but at the end of the post I didn’t have the energy to go into it. Fortunately, “Serbo” was, for the most part, right - except for my family, who defy every possible Croatian stereotype, thankfully. He was only partially right about Serbs, but, being a Serb, of course he was.)
4. Sorry - I always get “Nordic” and “Scandinavian” mixed up. So Finland is Nordic, but not Scandinavian. I’ll probably fuck it up again in the future. Fortunately, I don’t mix up Slovakia and Slovenia, though. That’s good because most Europeans do. (Add to that the eastern region of Croatia called “Slavonia” and you have a recipe for Europeans eating their words about American geographical ignorance.)
5. I am aware that Spaniards are not Latin American. But when you hear a person speaking Spanish, even in Europe, it’s not all that unusual to find out that they’re, in fact, Latin American (the rich variety that moves to Mother Europe). They outnumber Spaniards about 9 to 1 worldwide. But if you dare ask a Spaniard if they’re from Colombia or Argentina, be prepared to wipe some venom from your eyes.
6. The nationality that consistently told me I was wrong: POLES. Oh, the irony. I lived in Poland for 2 years (the other 2 years in Europe were spent in the Netherlands). I lived with two Polish families, in different parts of the countries. I speak Polish fluently. Alez Polacy….nawet MIESZKALEM w Polsce, to wiedze chyba wiecej o Wama niz to, co Wy wiecie o samym sobie. W odroznieniu od reszty nacji europejskich (oprocz Finow),  jestescie ciszymi introwertykami (nie ma w tym nic zlego!). A nigdy w ogole nie slyszalem ani jednego zartu o Niemcach…..ANI JEDNEGO! Takich zartow “Polak, Rusek i Niemiec” nigdy nie slyszalem.
7. Times sure have changed. When I was living in Europe (the beginning of this decade) there was not nearly as much resentment against Poland. But then again that was before Poland joined the EU and Poles streamed out of the country to the west.

Because I’m multilingual, nonreligious, and not fat, I guess I didn’t fit any European stereotypes of Americans, which are much worse than the fanciful (positive) stereotypes Americans generally have about Europeans. I heard “But you’re not a typical American” all the time - which, I think, the usual American would embrace like a badge of honor, but which I felt vaguely insulted by (maybe I’m not typically American, then!). But, regardless, Europeans opened up to me and told me what was generally thought of other nationalities within their Union.

But, of course, these are mostly stereotypes, and very temporal in nature. And the intensity of feeling, of course, increases as you approach the border. Poles and Spaniards have nothing but good things to say each other, because they’re nowhere near each other. But talk to a Pole in Cieszyn and a Czech in Tesin (hint: it’s the same city, split in half), and you’ll suffer 3rd degree burns as each fulminates about the other.

There was a request about how Americans feel about each other. It’s not as nuanced, because our country is much younger, and Americans are far more mobile, but there are stereotypes and feelings. Many of them might not be any surprise to Europeans and others familiar with US geography; others might seem inconsequential.

Give me a day or two and I’ll publish something.

(A boyfriend of a friend of mine was Ghanaian, and worked in Ivory Coast, and told me all about Africans, back in 2002. I wish I could remember all he told me - that was a great listen)

Update: Looks like Metafilter picked it up. Thank you, goodnewsfortheinsane!

Me: XXX-XXX-XXXX

Yahoo: Thank you. How may I help you today?

Me: I would like to upgrade my DSL service.

Yahoo: I understand that you want to upgrade your DSL service. Unfortunately, the sales department is closed. You can reach them Monday through Friday, from 7 am to 6 pm, Eastern.

Me: Thank you, Marc Manson. Thank you for that information, Marc Manson.

Yahoo: You’re welcome. You can reach them at 1-877-XXX-XXXX.

Me: Thank you for providing me with excellent service. Is there anything else that you can help me with today?

Yahoo: Can I help you with anything else?

Me: Please note that this chat session might be recorded for quality purposes.

Yahoo: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your request.

Me: Thank you for choosing to help me today. If you chose to fill out a short survey, you will be directed to that now. Have a great day.

Pretty much every activity increases the level of CO2 on the planet. Of course, we know about those evil SUV drivers. But so do Prius drivers. So do public transportation riders. So do bicycle riders (How does their food get planted, harvested and transported to their table?).

But yes, some people use less energy than others, having switched to a “lower carbon footprint.” Countries like Britain have switched to natural gas from coal, emitting less CO2 per unit energy. What effect does this have?

If conservation efforts or technologies aimed at reducing energy usage continue, total energy usage will climb.

This is due to the Jevons Paradox, which is simply the law of supply and demand applied to energy. William Jevons discovered this to work when the coal-fired steam engine, which made coal use far more efficient, resulted in coal usage going up.

Why? Conservation reduces the demand for energy. That results in a lower per unit cost for energy. Energy is now more attractive to use, and more people will use it.

Or, projected onto the world of geopolitics, if the developed world reduces its use of fossil fuels (or, cheats like the UK has done, and simply switches to a less carbon-intensive fuel), that makes fossil fuels more accessible to the developing world. The developing world’s usage of fossil fuels goes up. This is not a conscious decision. It simply follows the laws of supply and demand. And countries that are using more fossil fuels are outpacing those that are using less.

So conservation efforts and political agreements that don’t include absolutely everyone will not work…that is, if your goal is to actually reduce CO2 output. The cynic in me truly believes that Kyoto was an attempt by the rich world to absolve itself of blame when global warming starts causing serious problems and the recriminations begin.

The EU can throw up its hands and say, “We did what we could, and you apparently agreed that was good enough by signing the Kyoto Accord in 1997!” (Notice I didn’t include Canada, New Zealand or other rich signatories, who have increased their CO2 levels above 1990 levels even more than the US has. And the biggest reducers are the former Communist countries that “enjoyed” rapid deindustrialization following the collapse of the Soviet empire)

And it’s not just a matter of getting “baddies” that everyone likes to bitch about, the US and China, to reduce their levels. There are approximately another 100 countries under people’s collective radar that are not obligated to do anything under Kyoto, that will continue to create more and more CO2 as their economies grow. And the more CO2 that’s reduced in the rich world by conservation, the more CO2 that will be created in the developing world as prices for fossil fuels are lowered.

So what is the solution, then? In my mind, there are only three:

1. Create and propagate clean technologies that are actually cheaper to use, on a per unit basis, than fossil fuels.
2. Somehow sequester the CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Find other ways to cool the planet, including raising the albedo of the planet, reducing jet condensation trails (contrails), etc.

#1 will take many decades to achieve. And keep in mind that the more clean technologies attempt to take away market share from fossil fuels, the lower the price of fossil fuels will drop…leading to more fossil fuel usage. So unit energy costs of renewable energy is a moving target unless you can agree at an international level (i.e. in EVERY country) to subsidize alternative energy and/or tax fossil fuels.

#2 seems attractive if it can be done so economically. I know there are attempts to seed the ocean with minerals (principally iron) that will cause a bloom of (CO2-absorbing) phytoplankton that will drop to the ocean floor and effectively sequester CO2 for thousands of years.

#3 is worth investigating, as well. If there are ways to reflect light/heat from the planet that would offset the rise in heating created by higher CO2 levels, there might be promise.

I’m not suggesting we don’t encourage conservation, or invest in alternative energy today. Both have benefits that go far beyond CO2 reduction. Conservation improves economic efficiency (which is probably why China is enforcing a high mpg standard, which Al Gore mentions in Inconvenient Truth) and there are other pollutants, like sulfur and nitrogen oxides, ozone and particulates that we would probably want to reduce in the air.

But until people ( and that includes self-righteous activists like Laurie David) grapple with the reality that adherence to Kyoto does almost nothing to counter global warming, nothing will really improve on the global warming front.

In other words, why are Matt Damon and Tom Cruise so clearly gay, but never Rainn Wilson or Steve Buscemi?