Sun, 27 August 2006 11:52 pm Comments (0)

Urban residential trees vs. suburban commoditization

Earlier this week I trekked out to Downers Grove to attend a three-day training course. Perhaps it was there because Sun Microsystems thought that a location by an expressway interchange near the geographic center of Chicagoland would make it maximally convenient, or perhaps it was just the best real estate they could find to fit their requirements; in any case it required a commuting ordeal since neither the mass-transit nor the expressway systems are designed to easily move people (especially city dwellers) in that direction. That commute was excruciating–even though I was the driver only one of the three days! How do people do that every workday? I’ll have to remember that if I start to gripe about the walk to/from the train…even on a bitter cold day, it’s still better than being stuck in rush-hour traffic.

I found it interesting that our neighborhood seemed like such an urban oasis at the end of each day; it was something that went beyond the usual relief of finishing a workday. Liz sometimes laments that we seem so far away–no doubt, this neighborhood lacks the buzz of Lakeview. Yet, as quiet, residential, and lacking in the cultural amentities (read: lots of nearby bars, restaurants, and shops) as our street is, to me it feels distinct from the ’suburbs’ for reasons I couldn’t quite explain. It’s something more than just the green light poles and our determination to not be suburbanites. As I gazed out the living-room window today in that half-relaxation, half-procrastination reverie that so often pervades a Sunday afternoon, I saw a clue that solved the puzzle at least somewhat.

A mature horse chestnut tree.

Now it’s not only cliche but somewhat unfair to disparage the suburbs for the saplings and adolescent trees that demark new and recent developments, as that distinction will fade with time. Yet the maples and horse chestnuts that line our street mostly have two-foot-wide trunks and are taller than the two-story bungalows, which indicates that the area has had time for the natural comings and goings of the residents to establish a dynamic. These trees are set in front lawns that seamlessly merge from one to the next, forming a common space that neighbors mow without regard to property lines and the local kids use as one big play area. These trees line a street that is less dense with cars than our old area of two- and three-flats yet still requires careful navigation since it predates the dominance of the car culture. These trees stand in front of houses that are generally similar in appearance due to their era of construction yet are all subtly different in their brickwork and dormers and such. These trees are wayposts for walks to restaurants and shops that are fewer in number and farther away than we had in Lakeview yet still exist as unique institutions.

Contrast this with what I witnessed on this week’s suburuban jaunts. The suburbs are filled with similar-looking houses on lots designed to exude a sense of ‘my property’ (and still will be when the trees mature), placed on streets designed to maximize convenience for vehicles. Each morning many denizens of the suburbs climb into their cars, drive down industrial-sized roads and highways lined with strip malls and chain restaurants that repeat every few miles to reach gleaming–yet jarringly quiet–commercial parks that look almost identical to the ones by the next interchange. Almost everything about all of that just screams out separation and commoditization: people giving over their lives to mass-produced houses and offices and meals and culture, spending great amounts of time isolated within cars and fences. Almost everything has been built to the purpose of minimizing costs and maximizing repeatability.

Our new neighborhood shares with the suburbs a focus on the residential life, no doubt; we’re still learning the dynamics, and perhaps the extra effort required to take advantage of the North Side/Downtown culture will lead us to spend more and more time inside our property lines. Yet this area exudes a sense of distinctive place that is still sorely lacking in much of the sprawl that lies beyond the city limits; the eight miles that separate Norwood Park from Lakeview seems to hold more variation and personality than the 22 miles of bad road from here to Downers Grove. A quick look at the tree in our front yard is a reminder that no developer can simply create that urban personality from scratch, and being part of it may be worth the cost of fewer square feet or a bit more on the mortgage payment.

Thu, 24 August 2006 9:01 pm Comments (0)

The politics of Pluto

While it was interesting to see astronomy be front-page news for a few days, I can’t help but shake my head over the tribulations about the status of Pluto over the past few days. For what it’s worth, I think the IAU’s draft proposal that would have granted Pluto, Charon, and ‘Xena’ planet status was a valiant attempt to craft something that was reasonably objective…yet I also see the merit in its redesignation since it certainly seems a breed apart from the ‘official’ planets.

Yet, I wish the IAU had done a little more of this behind closed doors, announcing the final decision rather than the dramatic, back-and-forth of ‘yes, we think it is’ followed by ‘nah, never mind, it isn’t’ just a few days later. Granted, this is how science works: discussion, debate, and often decisions based on less than clear-cut criteria. However, many in the public expect that scientists have definitive answers–indeed, that a clear definition of planet had never been established was news enough to many people! This expectation is perhaps unjustified, but I’m mildly fearful that this recent squabble may muddy the waters and give further ammunition to those anti-scientific groups who already are showing a distressing amount of influence.

Hopefully it will all blow over. Besides, many will continue to look for Pluto, Ceres, and other dots in the sky no matter how the IAU decides to classify them.

Reading list

Sat, 19 August 2006 6:47 pm Comments (0)

A day at the old ballyard

With the exception of overcast rather than clear blue skies, everything else about our afternoon at Wrigley seemed to come together nicely. Public transit moved fairly smoothly all the way to the ballpark. Carlos Zambrano, the only truly consistent star the Cubs have had in 2006, was the starter. The team picked yesterday to finally surrender a game to the Cardinals–I figured there was no way the division-leading Cards were gonna go 0-for-Chicago this season–so that burden of expectation was relieved. Our upper-deck seats had a good view, we were near the premium-beer stand, the temperature was pleasant, and there were some sightings of the Blue Angels to add a little spice.

We certainly got our money’s worth. Cubs-Cards is always a festive experience, and this one had not only plenty of action–nine runs on 18 hits means a goodly amount of activity yet not quite a boring slugfest of sloppy pitching–but an extra inning to boot. Big Z was a bit shaky for the first two innings, but got out of major jams to turn in a very impressive seven innings. Too bad the bullpen couldn’t hang on to a one-run lead…twice. Yet, that did set up perhaps the most spectacular combination of play and situation that I’ve ever personally witnessed: Juan Pierre going back on a Pujols drive, checking the wall, checking the ball and backtracking further, checking the wall again, and finally leaping into the ivy with exquisite precision to snag the ball just under the basket–turning a game-breaking, bases-loaded double into a long, loud third out. The stunned buzz of ‘did I really just see that?’ was palpable; too bad the play came for a Cubs team that has been reduced to merely the role of spoiler. At least that play plus Nevin’s game-winning single an inning later kept Z’s outing from being in vain.

  • I noticed a number of Cardinals fans walking around the park in T-shirts showing how many more championship rings they had in comparison with the Cubs. The main gist was that, unlike the Cubs, the Cards had more rings than a bear has claws, and the text finished with something along the lines of ‘…and our last one wasn’t before man’s first flight.’

    Hmm. Wright brothers, 1903. Cubs last World Series victory, 1908. Cards in World Series: 9-for-16. Cubs in World Series: 2-10 (plus 6 pennants prior to St. Louis joining the NL in 1892). Bears have four paws with five claws each.

    So, while that T-shirt reiterated the obvious fact that St. Louis has had a more successful baseball team over the years, apparently they’ve done so at the expense of learning other things like history, biology, and arithmetic. Glad to hear they’re proud of that tradeoff.

  • While getting to the game was okay, getting home was more irritating. When the touch pad registers a proper hit with a CTA Chicago Card, it lights up and beeps, but when there is a problem with the hit it…well, lights up and beeps. Very helpful there, guys, and having the bus driver yell out ‘Sir! Sir!’ without actually explaining the issue isn’t much better. Moreover, after a decade or so of electonic farecards of various types, why the hell hasn’t the CTA figured out how to properly cope with transfers and multiple users on the same card yet? Seriously, the number of use cases isn’t that large, nor does it require a particularly complicated state diagram. I’m pretty sure a high-schooler could write the necessary software, and sell it to the CTA for something that would meet their budget constraints.
  • Thu, 10 August 2006 11:35 pm Comments (0)

    Foiled plots, political fatuity

    Like most today, I awoke to hear the breathless news of a disrupted plot to blow up London-to-USA airliners. My thoughts were not of fear, but more of commendation. Kudos to the investigators, it’s good to see some of the work is actually done by competent people. It was gratifying to hear about it in the planning stages rather than after the fact. As much as the crackdown on carry-on baggage and general pre-boarding security is going to make air travel much more painful (although, sadly, whether that will really prevent any tragedy is arguable), can you imagine how much worse it would be if the authorities were scrambling to impose a solution if we were counting victims rather than suspects?

    However, my mood quickly turned to annoyance (not difficult at 7am on a Thursday) when, instead of a useful weather report, I was switched to a press conference from Michael Chertoff and Alberto Gonzalez. Okay, fine, raising the alert level, instituting tigher policies, and telling the public the reasons why was perfectly fine…but then it degenerated into an irritating spew of self-serving puffery and fearmongering. It’s one thing to specify what actions various agencies are taking to address the situation, but it’s unnecessary to repeatedly mention that it’s the Bush administration acting to keep us safe. Giving credit to the investigators who discovered and foiled the plot is good, and while the nature of the plot certainly warranted American involvement it seems a bit presumptive for DHS to take much credit for British agents rounding up British nationals on Britsh soil to disrupt a activity to be instigated from a British airport. Finally, given the nightly news and events stretching back the last, I dunno, 25 years or so, it is really unnecessary for department heads to lecture us on how there are Islamic radicals out there who dislike us and want to cause us ruin; that was pretty well-established on Sept. 10, 2001–9/11 didn’t Change Everything in that regard, it’s not news.

    Yet the nadir of my mood happened just a few moments later, for in the time it took to turn of the radio and walk downstairs, my mind wheeled to two thoughts in rapid succession: how much will the Republicans try to turn this into a rallying point for their election drive? can Democrats effectively parry with ‘why are we still dallying in an Iraq misadventure when the real threats to our national security are elsewhere’? Yeah, I’m a cynic, but the ease with which my thoughts moved in that direction almost made me feel the need to go back up and take a shower again. Sad, it took all of 25 minutes on a dreary weekday morning to show what a nasty, screwed up state our public affairs are in.

    (Of course, it didn’t take long for the first question to be answered. Or the second.)

    Reading list
    Notable quotes

    Thu, 3 August 2006 9:51 pm Comments (0)

    Kids these days

    U of I ugies troll through the camputown bars. One decided to relieve himself on a frat house bush. Campus cops give tickets. Why does such a mundane item rate a story in the Tribune? Apparently because one of the yahoos was tracked down via the current fashionable boogeyman, MySpace.

    I suppose the reporter and editors thought it might be a nice cautionary tale to remind people that the internet really is a public place where people who you’d rather not have your information can readily find it. That’s fine…but this one quickly degenerates into a mess of ‘wha?’

    First off: did the incident really rate signficant police involvement?

    Second: isn’t taking the kid’s phone pushing the limits a bit?

    Third:  was this such a dastardly crime that it required extensive police work to hunt down and nab this fugitive from justice?  I suppose that’s a good sign that the campus is a nice safe place, but I wonder if the extra $195 in fines was really worth the use of time and resources.

    Finally, what a doozy:

    Gartner, a U. of I. junior studying crop sciences, admits he lied but said he was shocked to learn that he was booked by Facebook.”I had no idea that old people were wise to Facebook. I thought they referred to it as a doohickey that kids play with,” he said. “I got bone-crushed.”

    Truly, the next great criminal mastermind.   ‘Doohickey’?  ‘Bone-crushed’?  Way to make the old alma mater, a true bastion of higher learning, seem like a haven for hicks!  Further, when I was in college–which was still my late teens–as much as I may have felt there was a cultural/generational gap from the powers that be, I don’t recall ever thinking of University officials or police officers as ‘old people’; moreover, I certainly don’t think I ever thought they were somehow incapable of understanding something like the world wide web (which was vastly more unknown to the wider public at the time!).

    Ugh!  Someone please tell me I’m objectively entitled to gripe about such things and not simply getting old…

    Wed, 2 August 2006 11:39 pm Comments (0)

    Proof, bedtime stories, and being right in Kansas

    Like others of a scientific bent, I was definitely heartened to see that the fight in Kansas over science education standards appears to be heading back in a sane direction. Yet one wonders if it’s just a temporary victory like those of recent years. How sad it is for the young Kansans who simply deserve a decent education that their elders keep bickering over ideology and can never seem to reach a lasting accomodation–that’s what we oughtta be teaching the kids these days, huh?

    Anyway, for all the intrigue, there’s one broader element that I haven’t seen anyone pick up yet. Several places have pointed out this little item

    Connie Morris, a conservative Republican running for re-election, said the board had merely authorized scientifically valid criticism of evolution. Ms. Morris, a retired teacher and author, said she did not believe in evolution.“It’s a nice bedtime story,” she said. “Science doesn’t back it up.” (Evolution’s Backers in Kansas Start Counterattack)

    (Call me presumptive, but I’m guessing that she and most others who share this kind of view completely miss the irony of arguing from a position based almost completely upon faith passed from one generation to the next while accusing an alternate view as nothing but a ‘bedtime story’.) When I read that, I thought back to another item from a few weeks ago about a ‘creationism park’ owner in Florida who was nailed for tax fraud (which is its own amusing story):
    He believes man and dinosaurs inhabited the earth together and has offered a $250,000 reward to anyone who can offer him satisfactory proof of evolution.

    In both these examples, the obvious bit of astonishment is the ability of such people to look at the available information and claim that ’science’ is unable to provide anything to ‘back up’ its claims. If you don’t like the consequences of a theory and want to hold out to see if your pet theory can be vindicated later, fine, but I can’t begin to comprehend what sort of twisted understanding of science and evidence is required to look at what’s currently available and simply dismiss it as completely basis.

    Yet an even sadder aspect occurred to me. The two people described here have proven to be relatively successful and productive, so in general they would seem to have a basic grasp of how to analyze the world. So it would seem that perhaps it’s not that they can’t understand the more usual meanings of science and evidence, it’s that they are refusing to believe what’s currently available; I highly doubt there is any evidence from theory or the fossil record that would provide any sort of ’satisfactory proof’ that it’s not just a bedtime story. (Maybe an elixr that extends the human lifespan into the millions of years, combined with a time machine??) That would seem to me highly hypocritical, as they’re trying to used some debased form of the other side’s argument while simultaneously refusing to honestly enter the debate. Their arguments stem from a rock-solid faith that they have The Answer, so why is it so difficult to openly admit to us (and themselves) that they see absolutely no point in bothering to debate any further or brook any deviation from their ideas? Perhaps they’re afraid to look arrogant or backwards, but shouldn’t such issues of perception be irrelevent given the absolute correctness of their positions?

    Reading list
    Notable quotes

    Tue, 1 August 2006 12:00 am Comments (0)

    Hark! RHE lives!

    What’s this?  A post?  Two even??

    Well, at long last I’ve started to whittle down that TODO list that seemed to grow ever longer after moving into the house.   More importantly, I think I’ve managed to piece together a method for taming the even longer list of links that I’ve bookmarked in various ways in the hope of making some pithy commentary.  Trying to pull something to write about from a huge list (300+ by the time I got around to it over the weekend) of potential ideas was daunting enough, made even worse by the challenge of easily pulling all that HTML together.  I have hope that things should be easier, both for quick swipes at the world’s goings-on and for broader musings…at least for a while.  Maybe putting it in words and slapping it on the internets will make it true.

    Those readers who just tune in to see what news and thoughts cross my consciousness can stop reading now.  Techie stuff below.

    No, really.  You’ve been warned.

    Actually, my solution is fairly straightforward (and perhaps almost obvious) for a good chunk of blogistan.  To wit:

    1. Use Flock to a) tag pages, b) save newsfeed articles, and c) save Web Snippets
    2. Cron up a perl script to pull the last day’s bookmarked feeds from del.icio.us and append them to an open, unpublished entry in Flock’s blog directory
    3. Review entries, decide upon amazing commentary
    4. Post!
    5. Wrangle too-long lists of links by tagging them appropriately in del.icio.us and simply appending a link to that tag in the post
    6. Shove off too-long lists of intriguing quotes into WordPress pages, again linked back to the main post

    It took me a while to figure out the best way to handle (2) and (3) because they seem to fall into a gaping holes in the technology.  That the del.icio.us API has a crappy way to pull down a list of links by date range & filter, while having a modicum of control over the formatting, was understandable when it was just one guy–but c’mon, they’ve been part of the Yahoo! behemoth for months now, I think they can spare a couple days of developer time to fix that.  Moreover, the blogging protocols still seem to have trouble with the concept that someone might want to post something from a remote tool but not actually release said post to the world without a little more time to review and edit.  Fix those two little gaps, and the blogging toolkit is much more to the liking of people like me who prefer to not only age my words but filter out some of the more mundane links that end up in my bookmarks (truly, many of them really are only going to be interesting to me).

    Of course, this is all theoretical since I have yet to actually post anything according to this finely crafted formula.  But at least I have a documented plan…