telescreen.org

Hey there. I'm still here.  Not much to say, and spotty 'Net access prevents even that most of the time. Feeling kind of tired and empty and blue -- nothing alarming, mind you, but it's been a long day week month or so and a bit of a grind.

Watch this -- it's haunting.

Naked guy in the mist, originally uploaded by Vidiot.

"Mercury", by Jules-Alexis Coutan, atop Grand Central Terminal. That's the MetLife (nee Pan Am) building in the background.

(What, you were expecting gorillas or something?)

(The full poem.)

Where's your antipode?

Happy Festivus, everyone.

Seen yesterday on CNN's ticker:

"POWELL TO DROP BALL ON NEW YEAR'S"

I mean, didn't he do that at the Security Council already?

Flickr sucks!

If you're reading this, and you know me personally, then I probably owe you an e-mail or a call or a visit or a holiday gift.  (Perhaps all of the above.)  Apologies -- my annual holiday freakout is upon me, what with work stuff and December stuff, one set of parents visiting for a week, prepping to visit another set in early January, et cetera, et cetera.  So I'm running behind.

The above is by way of explanation, incidentally, and not excuse.  Rest assured that I haven't forgotten you -- you're on my list, and I've not yet gotten to the point of checking it twice -- and will endeavor to try to not be such a lame-o by this time next year. 

ITHACA, N.Y. — Nearly half of Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.

The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.

Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim Americans.

Excuse me:  This is America, right?  The land in which we aspire to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, or their gender, or their creed?  The land in which Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?  The land in which it's not argued or fought over, but it's self-evident that all people are equal, with inalienable rights such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?

Or is it the land in which people need to watch what they say and what they do?  In which there ought to be limits to freedom?  In which critics of the powerful are traitors who erode national unity and give ammunition to our enemies?

Last Sunday, I went on a walking tour organized by Forgotten NY webmaster Kevin Walsh.  Forgotten Tour #18 covered Harlem's Hamilton Heights and Sugar Hill neighborhoods, as well as City College.  It was fascinating and a lot of fun to hang out with fellow building geeks, all spotting details and taking pictures.

Speaking of pictures, a bunch of my pictures from the tour are here.  (Flickr has some sort of bug with ordering pictures when you upload them in bulk -- I'll try to fix the order when I can.)

Oh, and posts may be thin for the next week or so.  Xmas stress + a parental visit = not much time for blogging.

Wondering what to get the budding pop star in your family?  Talent's not an issue with the Ashlee Simpson Karaoke Edition iPod.

Fish highway!

Some photo galleries for your Saturday pleasure:  Wrecked Exotics and Extreme Ironing.

Shooting back, originally uploaded by Vidiot.

I have an inexplicable compulsion to shoot pictures of surveillance cameras.

Another reason why I love the NYT:

A picture in the National Briefing column in some copies on Wednesday, with a report about Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, was published erroneously because of a production error. It showed Ignacio Siberio, an 80-year-old Florida fisherman, who figured in a report on Tuesday about his rescue after 18 hours clinging to a buoy.

(via Wonkette.)

Christmas letters...to Christopher Walken.

This one's my favorite:

Brought to us, incidentally, by the same guy who brought us the best painting ever.

Remember back in June, when the MTA wanted to ban all photography in the subway?

And remember when they tabled that plan in September?

Well, it's back.  Published on p. 16 of the November 24, 2004 issue of the New York State Register, we find:

...in light recent national and international events that have underscored the need for heightened security measures throughout the transit system, a reinstatement of a prohibition that existed until the early 1990's against photography, filming, and video recording in transit facilities and on transit conveyances without prior authorization except for members of the press.... Consideration was given to restricting photography, etc. of sensitive areas only. However it was felt that a less restrictive approach would not yield the necessary security enhancements and given the nature of the activities in question enforcement of a rule which required law enforcement personnel to make a judgement of the precise subject matter being photographed would be highly problematic.

If the MTA gets its way, you won't be able to take photographs or video anywhere in the MTA system, with "security" being the only justification.  You could be fined $25 (remember, Osama can't afford $25!) if you take a picture anywhere in the subway.

The Committee for a Free New York has more:

This rule also does not address the fact that there are already many books and websites that document, in photographs and even blueprints, nearly every aspect of the NYC subway system. Simply stated, terrorists don't need to take photos of the subway system if they desire to attack it. The information is already out there. The horse has left the barn. If we allow the MTA to ban photography, what is next? Book burning?

The only people this proposed ban will affect are average New Yorkers, and tourists, whom will more likely than not have zero knowledge of this rule - and (if) caught and fined, will surely have nothing good to say about NYC when they go home. As even Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated in May, the MTA should 'Get real'.

As nycsubway.org notes, the 45-day public comment period ends January 8th.  No public hearings have been scheduled.  (There wasn't any debate yesterday, either, when the MTA board voted to raise fares and cut service.)  So comment!  Here's where to write.

Incidentally, you know those great lightboxes with the photo exhibits, downstairs in the Grand Central dining concourse?  Currently they're showing an exhibit of wonderful photography (from the likes of Cartier-Bresson, Bruce Davidson, and other Magnum photographers) to commemorate the subway's centennial.  Funny thing is, though, most if not all the pictures being shown by the MTA were illegally taken; a subway photography ban existed for decades until the early 1990s. 

Presumably these Library of Congress pictures, taken in the late '70s, were illegally taken as well.

The C.F.N.Y. is calling for a flashmob to protest this ban at 1pm tomorrow at the information booth in Grand Central.  I wish I could be there.  The subway brings New Yorkers from all walks of life together and is a signature part of our urban existence.  Restricting photography in its confines is wrong.

Brilliant.  For $20, you can have any photo turned into an iPod ad.

Saddening headline:

'LAPD Plan To Curb Flashlight Beatings'

Well, I guess it's a good start...

I've been wondering for quite some time now why Bob Novak isn't more involved in the investigation of the Valerie Plame leak.  After all, he was the first to print her name and status, endangering her life and career.  Two journalists are currently facing prison time for (commendably) refusing to divulge their sources...yet Novak, the man who indubitably knows the identity of the leaker(s), is apparently beyond legal jeopardy.

The LAT addressed this the other day, offering five possible explanations.  Here are the two most intriguing ones:

Theory 3:  Novak was subpoenaed but (a) invoked his 5th Amendment rights or (b) received immunity

If Novak is a criminal suspect, he can refuse a subpoena to avoid self-incrimination. But it is unlikely Novak could be prosecuted for naming Plame, say legal experts. "To prove that Novak broke the law, a prosecutor would have to convince a jury that he was basically sitting in meetings with White House officials saying, 'OK, this is how we are going to do this,' " said Floyd Abrams, a 1st Amendment expert representing Cooper and Miller.
Even if Novak is a suspect, there's a wrinkle.

Courts have ruled that 5th Amendment protection disappears when prosecutors grant a witness immunity. Fitzgerald has declared the leakers his real target. So why not give the columnist a get-out-of-jail-free card in exchange for testimony?

Theory 4:  Novak was subpoenaed and has already testified

This theory is a cocktail-party favorite. Novak is reviled by the left, who are angered by his loosely verified scoops and the effectiveness of his attacks.

Nearly every journalist interviewed for this article, all of whom demanded anonymity, said they thought Novak had already spilled his guts. The theories run from the pitying ("Bob wouldn't last 12 seconds in jail. They don't serve martinis in there") to the conspiratorial ("The testimony was taken in private, it was totally secret, and I'm sure it was in a dark room. There may have been pentagrams and burning candles").

If Novak has already testified, however, why is the investigation ongoing? Some suspect there are multiple leakers, so even if Novak revealed his sources, prosecutors want to make certain Miller and Cooper spoke to the same people. But if Novak did talk, why no arrests?

Unlike the French, Americans know how to lose their explosives.

Why do they hate Jesus so much?

In Terrebonne Parish, La., an organization is petitioning to add "Merry Christmas" to the red-lighted "Season's Greetings" sign on the main government building and is selling yard signs that read, "We believe in God. Merry Christmas." And a Raleigh, N.C., church recently paid $7,600 for a full-page newspaper ad urging Christians to spend their money only with merchants who include the greeting "Merry Christmas" in ads and displays.

(That's from this AP story.)  Now, I'm (somewhat) religious, and I don't understand all this brouhaha.  Nor do I like it.  A merchant's using "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" isn't displaying some sort of evil, anti-Christian intent.  They're a.) making a smart business decision, in trying to avoid alienating the non-Christians out there, and b.) simply being polite.

I know this offends the nutjobs out there, but this is not a monotheistic country.  The majority is Christian, yes, but there are certainly lots of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, what-have you.  How does coercing stores to display "Merry Christmas" signs further the Christian message?  Instead, it says "We're going to jam this down your throat, and we don't give a damn how you feel about it." 

Which brings me back to the title of this post.  See, the Christian message (to me, at least) is a beautiful expression of love, forgiveness, and peace.  These activists' attempts, like the conservative/fundamentalist hatred of gay people, the insistence on the death penalty, and the close-minded stance regarding anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe, seem to me to be a perversion of that Christian message.

More from the AP:

In California, a group called the Committee to Save Merry Christmas is boycotting Macy's and its corporate parent, Federated Department Stores, accusing them of replacing "Merry Christmas" signs with ones wishing shoppers "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays." The organization cites "the recent presidential election showing political correctness is offending millions of Americans."

To which August Pollak has the best response:

So let me get this straight... a Christian group is boycotting Macy's because it won't say "Merry Christmas," as a means to protect the... commercialization of Christmas?

I get the deal with feeling free expression is repressed and all that (even if I don't agree with that rhetoric), but this is ridiculous. Granted, I'm not religious, and I think "Happy Holidays" is as much decent marketing sense as it is cultural sensitivity. But amidst this culture of "protecting religion," Christians are now angry that secular concepts like Santa and "Merry Christmas" banners are being removed in favor of a generic tiding of good cheer for all people, allowing Christian (and all other religions') concepts to be placed at a more private, personal level? As if that's not, you know, a good thing?

They're not defending Christmas... they're defending Christmas-themed merchandising. Wow.

Man, here I was thinking that the holidays were about unity and the celebration of family with those you love. No, turns out it's about who gets what sign of their preference over the $7.95 DVD Bargain Bin. Silly me.

What Would Jesus Buy?

Now this is cool:  VisitorVille is an app that takes your server logs and plots them in a SimCity-like environment.  Visitors are shown as individual people.  What page is most visited?  Look for the crowds.  What search engine refers the most users?  Check out the buses that pull up and disgorge tons of folks.  Skyscrapers, each representing individual pages on your site, dynamically resize themselves and light up or go dark, depending on the traffic they draw.  (Check out their animations, too.)

Nifty...and it almost makes me wish I were an IT guy that could get to use this on a daily basis.  (Even more fun would be to eavesdrop on some big popular site's traffic and see what it looks like in this.) 

Manhattan skyline, originally uploaded by Vidiot.

"This city seen from the Queensboro Bridge is always this city seen for the first time, in its first wild promise of all the mystery and the beauty of this world." –- F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

Congratulations, Tift!