Friday, 7 December 2007

Please Turf John Hall

Early this week I got a message from John Hall, the congresscritter from New York’s 19th district. The subject line read, “The Hall Report: I Want to Hear From You”. John, I doubt that very much, you lowlife spamming weasel.

The message was addressed to one of my administrative accounts with the name Brian Guerra. For all I know, Brian is one of Hall’s constituents. I haven’t corresponded with Brian for years, the address that Hall sent his newsletter to was, in fact, once Brian’s address at Quotes of the Day. I bought that site from Brian in 2000. As Hall has only been in office for a year, there’s simply no way that he legitimately got that address with that name associated with it. There’s no way that he legitimately got that address at all.

So I went to Hall’s website to share a piece of my mind. The mailing was political speech, and I adamantly oppose any attempts to limit or censor such communication. I also think that any elected official that demonstrates his sense of ethics and concern for the electorate by sending spam to people 3,000 miles outside his district should be promptly defeated, and I told him that in a feedback form.

He wasn’t impressed. In fact, he didn’t get the message. Within two minutes I got this in my e-mail:

Thank you for contacting my office and/or subscribing to my e-newsletter. You have received this automatically generated reply because the House computer system has been unable to confirm that your address is in the 19th Congressional District of New York. Unfortunately, Congressional rules prohibit me from using official Congressional funds to initiate communications with anyone outside my district.

That compounds his sin. He not only feels he has the right to interrupt my day with his message, but he has a system that makes sure he doesn’t get interrupted by my message to him.

If I were king, there wouldn’t be any congress, but there’s no reason to wait for that happy day to get this loser out of any position of responsibility. If you’re in the 19th district of New York, come September you’ll have the chance to bounce him in the primary, and if that fails, come November you’ll have the chance to retire him in favor of someone from another party. I hope you do, it will give him time to pursue a career more in keeping with his intelligence. Something along the lines of stocking paper clips in an office-supply warehouse.

Monday, 3 December 2007

What Were They Thinking?

Sometimes you have to wonder about the Roman Catholic Church. Facing many challenges in a world where millions welcome the Gospel message but aren’t quite so willing to swallow the male-dominated hierarchical church, Rome selected the head of the Inquisition to be their new leader in April 2005. (The Roman church has never had a branch formally called “The Inquisition”, but the current name of that body is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger led prior to his election.) More recently, the Archdiocese of Saint Louis may have topped that.

In an AP story that appeared in the New York Times last month, “Two Faiths Divided on Women’s Ordination Ceremony”, the Rev. Vincent Heier, director of the archdiocesen office for ecumenical and interreligious affairs is quoted as saying, “This is not a lack of forgiveness, but we have to stand for something. It’s a matter of principle.” And what is this core principal? That other religious bodies not offer assistance to women who wish to be ordained as priests.

In this particular story, a Jewish congregation made their sanctuary available for an ordination service for two women. The archdiocese was not in any way involved. Out of courtesy, the rabbi let Rev. Heier know of their plans. The archdiocese responded, according to the AP story they vowed never again to work with the congregation.

In times past, the archdiocese and the Central Reform Congregation were involved together in advocacy for the poor and immigrants. They doubtless provided support for some of the same soup kitchens. I guess that all stops now.

Reverend Heier, let me tell you something: As representatives of Jesus Christ in the third millennium at Saint Louis, support for the hungry and the foreigners in your community is a core principal. Choosing to not make use of women who are called to ordained ministry within your parishes is an organizational fetish, it’s not a principle. Refusing to work with others in the community who don’t share this fetish isn’t a principle, it’s an absurdity.

If I Were King, or even Bishop of Rome, I’d send Rev. Heier to his room for a while to think about what his core principles are.

Saturday, 1 December 2007

Toilet Seats

(Another gem rescued by the WayBack Machine, originally filed on 31 October 2004)

I’m a guy. I’m not going to apologize for that, it’s just the way it turned out. For various reasons, guys and gals have different opinions about the normal state of toilet seats. This came as a surprise to me when I reached adulthood, because my mother and sister held an opinion that seems to be contrary to every other woman I’ve ever met.

Guys want to leave the seat up. Since most of the time we use the toilet we’re standing, and may approach the throne in a hurry, why not have the seat in the proper position for the most typical situation? Gals want the seat down, since they always use the throne sitting. Growing up, the house rules were that the seat must always be up, because the gals lacked confidence in the guys, suspecting we wouldn’t always take the time to lift the seat and not confident that we could aim through the seat. (They were probably right.)

In the home it isn’t possible to segregate bathrooms by sex in most cases. If I were king I could address the problem that way, but that doesn’t help most of us.

Then there are those who take this one step further if there is company coming: The seat cover must be down as well!

So, assuming a mixed-sex residence, how should this be resolved? My first reaction is that whoever has to clean it should get to decide. (That’s because I clean the toilets here in the palace.)

Programming theory has an elegant solution. The state of the toilet seat and cover is an “unitialized variable”, so the program should never assume it is in any particular state. Therefore, any routine that involves the toilet seat starts by setting the toilet seat either to a known default value, or setting it to the desired value for that routine. Pretty simple, eh? The rule of thumb is to be liberal about what you accept but very strict about what you do, which means that you make no assumptions about starting values, but always end a routine in a known state.

Basic fairness would require that all users have a similar experience, that none is treated preferentially. I know, somebody always expects to preferential treatment.

Therefore, based both on equal treatment of all comers, the need in some houses to keep pets from drinking the toilet water, good manners, and a basic programming response to a repetitive routine, we hereby decree that both toilet seat and cover should be down whenever you end your business in the bathroom, and that you shall not complain about the state it is in when you arrive. If I were king, this would be the law. Until then, it’s just a good idea.