GuyMcArthur.com

Home

Photos

Projects

Resources

Opinions

Links

This is a pretty remarkable story any way you look at it. Chris Heward, a prominent anti-aging researcher, was recently diagnosed with late-stage cancer. With his life on the line, he's going to try a new, yet unproven therapy. And you can help. Another researcher was apparently able to create a cancer immunity in mice. You can read about that here and here. Basically, the concept is that certain people's white blood cells seem to have cancer-fighting properties. That could explain Keith Richards. But seriously, this is a chance at finding a cure for cancer in which you could play a critical role. Find out more on this blog entry and this Facebook group.

So the (University of) Arizona Wildcat accidentally re-published a comic the morning after the election. It's by an African-American cartoonist and is based upon a real incident. It features "the N word" (partly obfuscated) and sends an important message about the casual racism that is still not too hard to find in the U.S.

Due to some snafu, it was published last Wednesday instead of a few weeks ago. A lot of people are very upset. It's probably appropriate that they fire the editor... don't they do a read-through?

It will be important for Democrats to not get over-confident in the next two years. Although the electoral college numbers show a wide margin, the popular vote is within a few percent. This was not a landslide. More to the point, although Obama was a very strong candidate, other factors basically handed this victory to the Democrats.

First, the meltdown of the financial system made people much more receptive to the message of 'change.' Back on Labor Day, electoral projections had McCain ahead, and Palin was looking like a brilliant strategic choice. If things had been just a little different, this election would have been as close or closer than 2004 or 2000.

Secondly, as they fell behind, the Republican party became a 'circular firing squad' and a campaign that was unwilling or unable to provide a clear, consistent, positive message. It should go down in history as one of the most inept campaigns. The irony is that McCain's strategy of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"--hiring the same people and using the same negative tactics that took him out of the 2000 race--backfired so completely. Even members of the media--even people from FOX News!--were speaking out against the lies and smears.

Finally, the GOP shot itself in the feet so many times over the past few years that they were hobbled from the outset. The litany of scandals is long. Senators Stevens, Craig, Delay embarrassed, convicted, or driven out. The House page scandal. The many missteps and oversteps of the Bush administration just in the final term that resulting in the lowest approval rating in modern history.

So this was not a mandate for progressive policies, though it is a clear opportunity to enact them. However, in 2009 we can't afford to make the same mistake as in 1993, when Democrats took control of both branches and tried to ram down a huge health care initiative. We'll have to start small and go slowly. It's worth remembering that in 1992 as well, it was an external factor (Ross Perot's splitting of the conservative vote) that allowed for Democratic gains. Basically, what it comes down to is that the Democratic party still has a long way to go before they are consistently as strong as the GOP over a few decades.

Here's what the Democrat's did right and different this time around.

• Had a charismatic and articulate candidate
• Responded quickly and vigorously to lies and smears
• Advocated centrist policies that were good for the middle class and small business
• Effectively used the Net to organize and raise funds
• Had a "50 state" strategy to build a larger base
• Picked an exceptional VP candidate

The 'blue wave' was not a tsunami, but it is refreshing after so many years of American ideals being tarnished, and let's hope that it can be sustained.

Well, I just can't help myself... I'm sitting here watching CNN and checking the live #election2008 live twitstream, hoping that projections hold and the red tide is flushed out of the system. The free 'I voted' Starbucks coffee will come in handy if it is a long night. Why don't we simplify and turn Starbucks into polling places?

Across from the University of Arizona, a group of students rallied on a busy street corner, holding up hand-made signs for Obama. At another corner, a giant billboard-sized McCain/Palin sign had a giant red circle-slash painted over it. Nearby, a Prop 102 (Arizona's equivalent of California's Prop 8--another attempt to insert bigotry into the state constitution) sign had a swastika drawn over it. The polling places looked busy this evening.

Locally, I am hoping to see that Gabrielle Giffords defeats Tim B(igot) and retains her House seat in congressional district 8, that Andrea Delessandro wins here in legislative district 30, and that Prop 102 is stopped.

The Tucson Museum o' fArt has a great display of Maynard Dixon paintings, one of the great painters of the American West, and former Tucson resident (he died in 1946). Lots of amazing works, many set in Tucson or parts of Arizona and New Mexico. You've probably seen a lot of these paintings, even if you can't recall any of them. His impressionistic style was well-suited to the desert southwest, where photos often can't fully convey the experience of epic scenery.

One of my favorites was 'Sky and Sandstone' (it does not look like any of the postage-stamp scans on the web), with Navajo (or Apache) riders against the background of a stark blue desert sky. The sky is a smooth gradient from deep azure down to turquoise above the sandstone on which they stand. The interesting thing is that he put most of the color variation down in a corner, in pockets of sandstone.

Another fascinating technique is employed in 'Corral Dust', which is a typical ranch scene, but he really managed to capture the look of dust, which must have been quite a technical challenge. From up close, it just looks like a large, mostly featureless splotch, but if you step back, your eyes start filling in details.

The show runs through 2/15 and is free the first sunday of each month.

XUL is an application framework from Mozilla (Firefox and Thunderbird are XUL applications with C++ extensions). I recently learned that you can run command-line programs from within script sections of XUL, which makes it significantly more useful for me. Of course, there are security restrictions; the XUL file needs to load from a local file (or be signed).

What I really like about it is that the UI is declarative, you can just type it up, preview it in the browser and hit reload to see changes. With the error console and other developer tools, you can use the same development tools and techniques from the web. Add the flexibility of JavaScript and you've got a really powerful base. There are some issues with particular 3rd party JavaScript libraries (such as jQuery), but it's not a big stumbling block.

Here is a toy application, yet another Twitter client. You'd run it with (for instance) firefox -chrome test.xul. If it executed commands, it would need a line that said netscape.security.PrivilegeManager.enablePrivilege ("UniversalXPConnect"); (the example does output with AJAX instead).

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="chrome://global/skin/" type="text/css"?>

<!--

    Twitter updater implemented in XUL

-->
<window
    id="win"
    title="XUL Twitter"
    orient="vertical"
    xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul"
    onload="updateLabel()"
>
    <script>
        var max = 140;
        var uid = 'guymac';
        var pwd = '******';

        var twitUpdate = 'http://twitter.com/statuses/update.xml';
        var twitCloser = 'http://twitter.com/account/end_session';

        function updateLabel()
        {
            var lbl = document.getElementById('lbl');
            var txt = document.getElementById('txt');
            var rem = max - txt.textLength;
            lbl.textContent = rem + ' char' + (rem > 1 ? 's' : '' ) + ' remaining';
            txt.disabled = !(rem >= 1);
        }

        function postTweet()
        {
            var lbl = document.getElementById('lbl');

            try
            {
                var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
                req.open("POST", twitUpdate, false, uid, pwd);
                req.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');

                req.send('status=' + document.getElementById('txt').value);

                if (req.status != 200) throw req.statusText;

                lbl.textContent = 'Twitter Updated!';
            }
            catch (ex)
            {
                lbl.textContent = 'Update failed (' + ex + ')'; 
            }

            var  req = new XMLHttpRequest();
            req.open("GET", twitCloser, false, uid, pwd);
            req.send(null);
        }
    </script>

    <textbox
        id="txt"
        maxlength="140"
        size="140"
        multiline="true"
        oninput="updateLabel()"
    />

    <label id="lbl"/>

    <hbox>
        <button label="Post" oncommand="postTweet()"/>
        <button label="Close" oncommand="window.close()"/>
    </hbox>

</window>

One of the few good legacies of the W administration may be the refocusing of NASA's human spaceflight program on exploration--leaving Earth orbit and establishing ourselves beyond this planet. I say 'may' because, for a variety of reasons, it has yet to happen.

First we need to use our shuttle fleet for finishing the International Space Station, repairing and upgrading Hubble, and launching the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. Secondly, we need to complete a new launch architecture that can fulfill the mandates of Bush's Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). NASA's is developing the Orion spacecraft and Ares launch vehicles for this purpose, though they must wait until the shuttles retire in order to pay for them. Then, finally, we need to embark on missions that will sustain the program and catalyze further exploration.

It's that last part--the actual missions--that is tricky. The VSE puts forth the Moon as the prime destination and only after, Mars (it's mentioned as a brief afterthought). I was disappointed that Carolyn Porco in Wired's 2008 Smart List (15 people the next president should listen to), basically endorsed the VSE as-is. The person the next president should listen to on space policy is instead Robert Farquhar. In a recent issue of The Planetary Report (XXVIII.2) he detailed an alternative to the as-is VSE that has substantial advantages.

Basically, Farquhar's plan is a stepping-stone approach that builds infrastructure for expanding outward. The first destination is a spot in space beyond the Moon that is gravitationally balanced (the Sun-Earth L2, or second Langrangian, point). This point is the planned location for the next-generation space telescope, the JWST. Other telescopes are currently planned for this destination, so there is some incentive to have the capability to send astronauts there.

He envisions a "Deep Space Shuttle" that would ferry astronauts and equipment between Earth and L2, and an "Interplanetary Transfer Vehicle" that would swing by L2 and out to Near-Earth asteroids or Mars. The DSS, despite the name, has no hardware in common with our current Space Shuttles; it is a pure spacecraft, a re-usable "taxi" that doesn't need to fly through an atmosphere. It does month-long circuits; presumably, the space station could be the staging point for outbound astronauts.

The best part is that L2 can be used as a hub for destinations in the inner solar system. The cost and energy savings versus going down to the Moon and back are considerable. The ITV could use gravity-assisted flybys of the Moon for further savings on its circuits in to, or out of, L2.

This plan has a lot going for it. There are real economic incentives such as the ability to service telescopes and determining the feasibility of asteroid mining. Telescopes have also been talked about for the Moon; large, expensive projects utilizing the far side. It's also possible that one day, lunar soil could be a source of fuel; namely, tritium for fusion reactors. Needless to say, that is still in the realm of science fiction. This Near-Earth plan by contrast has smaller, simpler, more achievable goals, each of which builds upon the previous. This staging infrastructure could also be used to intercept asteroids on Earth-crossing trajectories, steering them away from potential impacts.

Another feature I like is that the plan lends itself naturally to international cooperation. The International Space Station has shown that such cooperation is not only possible, but that such large projects likely would not happen otherwise. It is extremely doubtful that we would have the political (not to mention financial) will to complete the ISS on our own. In the Farquhar plan for instance, the Europeans could build the ITV just like they recently completed the Jules Verne ATV, while we could collaborate with the Russians on the DSS.

And, ultimately, it is a more workable path to Mars. The Moon may become an Antarctic-style outpost, but Mars can provide humanity's second world. There is a fork in the road, one leads back to the Moon and the other is an outward spiral leading to a richer set of destinations including Mars.

In desperation, McCain is now using the same robo-call people who smeared him eight years ago in North Carolina with racist lies, giving Bush a critical win. Last week, Keith Olbermann gave an impassioned (even for him) 'special comment', calling on McCain to stop the hate-fueling demagoguery. A clip is embedded below. This was quite a moment in television history, with a prime news anchor calling on a presidential candidate to suspend his campaign only weeks before the election.

As I read the Tucson Weekly review of God's Middle Finger: Into the Lawless Heart of the Sierra Madre, I knew this was one book that was going straight to the top of my reading queue. And, wow, it does not disappoint. I've had a fascination with the Sierra Madre for a number of years. This huge mountain range, which begins just south of the Arizona-Mexico border, is home to some of the roughest terrain on Earth... and some of the roughest people on Earth. Richard Grant tracks through it; despite many who warn him of the dangers, he's pulled like a magnet into the heart of darkness, and almost doesn't escape to tell the tale.

Along the way, the book is full of wild tales that he experienced first-hand and fascinating insights into the cultures of the region, and Mexico in general. A multi-day drunken Tarahumara Easter rite. Searches for lost gold and Apache descendants of Geronimo. Getting drunk and high with narcos and law officers alike (they are often actually the same people, an inextricable and ever-shifting mix of corruption). A gay wedding planner who reveals the secret sex lives of super-macho gangsta-narcos. A nice recount of Tarahumara ultramarathon exploits here in the U.S. The lawlessness that has been a constant for centuries in this region, and continues unabated. The surreal character of everyday life, where nothing can be believed to happen for natural reasons, and the elusive character of history in such a region.

Somewhat oddly, this book was filed in the 'True Crime' section at Borders, though it really belongs in Travel/Adventure. It's a really fun read, and will leave an indelible impression. I supplemented it by doing Google Image Searches on the town names he travels through. You'll find a few good sets of photos by folks who traveled through on motorbikes (sounds like a fun way to do it, though no doubt just as dangerous).

Max Payne is a dark, noirish, nearly perfect action thriller based on the video game of the same name. I had low expectations; I expected it to be marginally less loathsome than last year's Hitman--having little or no redeeming qualities to offset a gratuitous on-screen death toll. But Max Payne does have the redeeming qualities to make it a good movie, actually a great movie within its genre.

The casting choices were quite odd. Sometimes it worked really well (Donal Logue in a small part), other times not so much (Mila Kunis) as a hardcore criminal (to her credit, she does a good job, but it's just such a departure for her). Marky Mark's subdued performance makes the character believable.

It's a good, tight story; there are turns but you anticipate all of them. Visually the movie hits all the right targets: an icy, overcast New York deep in winter, where the only warm tones are in Max's memory.

I'm glad I watched... I felt Obama's debate performance was clearly superior over McCain's. Obama's answers were clear, reasoned and (I felt) convincing. His demeanor was calm and collected. McCain by contrast, repeated many of the same old endlessly debunked attacks and his answers on the issues were not convincing. His several attempts at humor fell flat or were just bizarre. He brought up Protectionism as if anyone in the audience remembered or understood. His repeated old-timey cliché metaphor that we need a 'calm hand at the Tiller' was also strange. I think that one might have last been used in the dust bowl days. His age really showed. All in all, I felt that Obama scored a dominating win in this debate and the "Town Hall" style format did not in fact serve McCain well.

Mary also noticed something revealing at the end. While Barack and Michelle stayed around for a long time, shaking hands, posing for photos, etc, Cindy McCain kept her distance from the audience, and she and her husband got out of there in a hurry.

Thankfully, the word "maverick" was never used.

More: Another couple of telling moments were when McCain showed his peevish side, asking Tom Brokaw and the audience if Obama had answered the question, implying that he had not. One was "did he say what his fine would be?" <smirk> <smirk> But I thought that Obama had in fact answered those questions (in that case, that there wouldn't be a fine).

Also shocking was McCain's sudden proposal to have the federal government directly buy bad mortgages and re-negotiate them, later followed by a seemingly casual admission that Social Security could not ultimately be saved.

I didn't hear or read much about The Good German, and hence was very pleasantly surprised after finally seeing it. This is Steven Soderbergh's WWII-era drama starring George Clooney and Kate Blanchett. It uses many stylistic devices of 1940's and 50's Hollywood films including, first and foremost, a black & white print. I wasted a good chunk of my childhood watching movies of this era on Seattle's KCPQ "Q-13" (I think they stopped filling their air-time with vintage movies right around the time I left; nearly 20 years ago). So it was kind of cool to see all those techniques and styles put to use again.

But, more importantly, it has a good plot. Set in Berlin right after the German surrender, it involves intrigue among various (and historically fairly accurate) factions: Americans who want to capture and prosecute Nazis, Americans who want to find the brightest rocket scientists to kick-start our own missile program, Russians who want to find them before we do, Germans who want to escape their complicity in Nazi war crimes, and Germans who want to cooperate and bring justice to those responsible. So given all the competing motives, you can imagine that a few plot twists are in order. Throw in a journalist just trying to get to the bottom of a story (Clooney), a corrupt Army sergeant (Tobey McGuire, his dopeyness is less out-of-place than usual here, given the actors that might have filled the role in a classic movie) and a possibly widowed German driven to prostitution (the aforementioned Blanchett) into the mix, and you have a plot that Hollywood would have loved sixty years ago.

But it still works today, and part of that is due to (no spoilers) working into the screenplay some of the actual historical facts that we have learned, namely the personal participation of German rocket scientists (including von Braun) at the slave labor camp where the V-2 was put into production. Struggle over direct evidence of such participation becomes a central plot-line providing additional drama with modern-day resonance.

There's nothing Hollywood does quite so well as dramatic tales of rogue cops and corrupt police departments, good guys gone bad, violent power struggles with Internal Affairs, and the bloody carnage of those who decide they're above the law. Street Kings is the latest in this long line, and it's quite entertaining. It is hard-fuggin-boiled, sometimes just about to the point of absurdity, lending it a latter-day noir-ish quality. Keanu Reeves' character is the bad cop, a "guided missile" with no regard for due process, taking on thugs and fellow officers alike. I gotta say, he's gradually become a better actor and he actually gives the role something very much akin to... ...believability. He's aided here by an exceptional cast: Forest Whitaker, Terry Crews, Jay Mohr, John Corbett, Hugh Laurie, Chris Evans, and others. I want to watch it again!

If you scored this one like a prize fight, I think McCain wins a split decision. He kept Obama on the defensive with constant mis-characterizations and other deceptive "tactics" (the foray into what is a tactic vs. what is a strategy was a weird, pointless tangent). Though Obama defended himself well, he delivered only glancing blows to McCain. The dueling dead-soldier bracelet match-up was pretty silly, I can just see them coming out next time festooned in bracelets, ribbons, and other memorabilia.

McCain was surprisingly lucid (must have been one of his good days), drawing on history and personal experience abroad, sounding stronger on foreign policy. Obama's counter that McCain's poor judgment in leading us into Iraq and away from Afghanistan was good, though delivered without requisite rhetorical punch.

But this was just round 1; I think Obama will be better served by the domestic topics, relating more of his own personal experiences, having more focused attacks, and putting McCain back on the defensive.

I noticed that McCain had a couple of grammatical slip-ups, though I'm sure nobody cares. And, BTW, why does he pronounce Washington "Warshington"? I didn't think that was an East-coast thing, and it's certainly not an Arizona thing.

McCain certainly dedicated himself to cutting government spending, while Obama seemed to claim it as an ideal, the specifics he mentioned would increase spending. Still, given the history of Republicans who pay lip service to fiscal conservatism, but making massive increases in federal spending when in office, we should be highly skeptical.

I was pleased that they both supported reviving the nuclear power industry as a component of alternative and green energies, though again, McCain seemed more committed to making it happen.

Obama's biggest points of the night came early on, during the economic discussion, skillfully laying out his tax plan and disparaging McCain's. And why, given all the flux, couldn't they have switched the topic to the economy?

... when the isht hits the fan! Here is just a couple of random thoughts related to the meltdown of America's financial industry.

• Consolidation is the root of the problem, not so much regulation and the lack thereof, except as they play into it. Under a more ideal system, all that bad debt would be spread among many more (smaller) banks and other lenders. Some would fail, the ones that found the right amount of risk would survive. This system would be a freer market, and more capitalistic, not less. The problem is that five firms were allowed to exceed the SEC's debt-to-capital ratio.
• This looks real bad for McCainiac & Co. Less than 24 hours after he declared our economy "fundamentally sound", that same economy was revealed to be within days of a complete meltdown (which may still happen). He should have known better; his own son managed a bank that ultimately failed, like a number of others have. As long as the news media focuses on real issues, McCain's campaign, such as it is, is in trouble.
• I don't want to be bailing out people who were stupid enough to get an "interest only" loan... or anyone who was willing to sell it to them. What about people who speculated on an ARM loan and are now getting burned? Drawing the line starts to get difficult after that.