Andrew Sullivan on Obama's Long Game (and my own frank opinion)

Anybody who cares about politics in the slightest, or who simply wants a little insight to cut through the media nonsense, should read Andrew Sullivan's article in this week's Newsweek. (Really: go read it -- it's a nice calm rundown, point-by-point, of the *reality* of the past four years.) He says far better than I can what I've been observing for a long time now: that President Obama has been not just less monstrous than his critics make him out to be, but actually a remarkably *effective* (and even surprisingly honest) politician.

I quite agree. Sullivan's main point is that Obama spends (by political standards) relatively little effort on hype, instead focusing on getting things done. He's gotten a *huge* amount done already -- and as Sullivan points out, if you actually pay attention, it's clear that he is running an eight-year presidency, focused on making serious long-run changes instead of popular quick political hits on the issue of the moment. No, he hasn't created Shangri-La on earth, but he never claimed he would. (Even if some of his more fevered supporters during the campaign believed it.)

I voted for him in 2008, to be the practical, smart, moderate technocrat that the country desperately needed. He's delivered surprisingly well -- better than anyone else in that campaign likely would have, and far better than anybody in this year's pack of Republican midgets plausibly might. No, I haven't agreed with every decision he's made, but that was expected: I voted for a leader, not a panderer. The worst I can say about him is that he's not as clever about the vicious game of politics as some in Washington. But choosing to focus on getting things done instead of political sound-bitery is not a weakness.

I intend to vote for him again, and there's not a hint of apology or "I guess he's been okay" in that. He's been presented with some of the most trying circumstances in decades, and he hasn't let them stop him from getting things done. He deserves to be re-elected; moreover, it is in the country's best interest that he be.

Andrew Sullivan on Obama's Long Game (and my own frank opinion)

Anybody who cares about politics in the slightest, or who simply wants a little insight to cut through the media nonsense, should read Andrew Sullivan's article in this week's Newsweek. (Really: go read it -- it's a nice calm rundown, point-by-point, of the *reality* of the past four years.) He says far better than I can what I've been observing for a long time now: that President Obama has been not just less monstrous than his critics make him out to be, but actually a remarkably *effective* (and even surprisingly honest) politician.

I quite agree. Sullivan's main point is that Obama spends (by political standards) relatively little effort on hype, instead focusing on getting things done. He's gotten a *huge* amount done already -- and as Sullivan points out, if you actually pay attention, it's clear that he is running an eight-year presidency, focused on making serious long-run changes instead of popular quick political hits on the issue of the moment. No, he hasn't created Shangri-La on earth, but he never claimed he would. (Even if some of his more fevered supporters during the campaign believed it.)

I voted for him in 2008, to be the practical, smart, moderate technocrat that the country desperately needed. He's delivered surprisingly well -- better than anyone else in that campaign likely would have, and far better than anybody in this year's pack of Republican midgets plausibly might. No, I haven't agreed with every decision he's made, but that was expected: I voted for a leader, not a panderer. The worst I can say about him is that he's not as clever about the vicious game of politics as some in Washington. But choosing to focus on getting things done instead of political sound-bitery is not a weakness.

I intend to vote for him again, and there's not a hint of apology or "I guess he's been okay" in that. He's been presented with some of the most trying circumstances in decades, and he hasn't let them stop him from getting things done. He deserves to be re-elected; moreover, it is in the country's best interest that he be.

Why SOPA Is Dangerous (and why you want programmers to read law)

This week's really interesting article from my LinkedIn slush pile is this one from Mashable. Everyone's been making a huge deal about the SOPA bill -- the Internet has been a mix of sites that blacked themselves out voluntarily, and those full of soundbites about the bill. This article is a fine contrast to that: the author actually dissects the bill, and explains why the language is broad enough to do enormous damage. The sponsors of SOPA and PIPA are back-pedaling furiously (and I'm pleasantly amused that *all* of the current presidential candidates have come out against the bills as currently written), but it's still worth a read if you want to understand the issues here.

The interesting side-note, though, is that the article isn't written by a lawyer, but by a programmer. That's not actually surprising. Good programmers are practiced in reading eye-glazing bodies of text, and understand what they really mean: not what was intended, not what they *say* that they do, but actually reading carefully, following the logic and figuring out what the results are. It's one of the least fun parts of the job, but is all too often necessary. (One sign of a really experienced programmer is the ability to catch many bugs simply by reading the code, never having to run it.)

And in many ways, reading contracts and law is similar. Far from identical, mind: they have their own distinct jargons, and are often quite intentionally ambiguous, and you have to understand that going in. But those programmer skills are still helpful in separating what someone *claims* is written down from what it really says. In the case of SOPA, that's crucial. The claims about the law are semi-benign, and the sponsors might even believe that's what they've written. But in fact, the law as written is much broader, more ambiguous and more dangerous than those claims -- as the article points out, the result is that the law criminalizes an enormous amount of legitimate Internet activity, and makes it all but impossible to run most websites safely.

So sometimes, it's not a bad idea to have a programmer look through your legal documents. Not just any programmer -- it requires one who has the skill and experience to read carefully, in great detail, understanding what is said and what it implies. And most programmers will not thank you for it. (Most legal documents are horrible spaghetti compared with decent code.) But sometimes, it's helpful...

Why SOPA Is Dangerous (and why you want programmers to read law)

This week's really interesting article from my LinkedIn slush pile is this one from Mashable. Everyone's been making a huge deal about the SOPA bill -- the Internet has been a mix of sites that blacked themselves out voluntarily, and those full of soundbites about the bill. This article is a fine contrast to that: the author actually dissects the bill, and explains why the language is broad enough to do enormous damage. The sponsors of SOPA and PIPA are back-pedaling furiously (and I'm pleasantly amused that *all* of the current presidential candidates have come out against the bills as currently written), but it's still worth a read if you want to understand the issues here.

The interesting side-note, though, is that the article isn't written by a lawyer, but by a programmer. That's not actually surprising. Good programmers are practiced in reading eye-glazing bodies of text, and understand what they really mean: not what was intended, not what they *say* that they do, but actually reading carefully, following the logic and figuring out what the results are. It's one of the least fun parts of the job, but is all too often necessary. (One sign of a really experienced programmer is the ability to catch many bugs simply by reading the code, never having to run it.)

And in many ways, reading contracts and law is similar. Far from identical, mind: they have their own distinct jargons, and are often quite intentionally ambiguous, and you have to understand that going in. But those programmer skills are still helpful in separating what someone *claims* is written down from what it really says. In the case of SOPA, that's crucial. The claims about the law are semi-benign, and the sponsors might even believe that's what they've written. But in fact, the law as written is much broader, more ambiguous and more dangerous than those claims -- as the article points out, the result is that the law criminalizes an enormous amount of legitimate Internet activity, and makes it all but impossible to run most websites safely.

So sometimes, it's not a bad idea to have a programmer look through your legal documents. Not just any programmer -- it requires one who has the skill and experience to read carefully, in great detail, understanding what is said and what it implies. And most programmers will not thank you for it. (Most legal documents are horrible spaghetti compared with decent code.) But sometimes, it's helpful...

Timeline -- Introduction

As I write this, it’s exactly one year since Jane died. I’m doing reasonably well, but that’s still not easy, and it drives home that I have some unfinished business. At the funeral and the memorial service, I focused on telling people about how she lived -- that’s the most important part. But I also need to tell the story of how she died.

This isn’t going to be easy, either to write or read; I’ll be kind of surprised if I can get through it without breaking down a few times. I’m not going to fault anyone who wants to just skip it, and I’ll put it behind cut tags. But I need to get it out of my head: I need to know that the story is written down and known, so that I can move on from it. Also, it’s rather cathartic (and somehow very appropriate) to dredge through the history and thread it together into a coherent story for the first time. So there will be some other significant passings and events woven through here: this is partly a story of Jane’s life, partly of her death, and partly of how the past ten years have affected me.

So I’ll be serializing that in the coming days. Could take me anywhere from a couple of days to a month to write it down, depending on how things go. It’ll have the “Timeline” title and be tagged as jane throughout. It’s going to be in approximate chronological order, but often with broad dates: my memory for details is infamously bad, and I’m not going to make myself crazy figuring out precise dates. God bless LJ, for providing me with a record of much of it.

As part of that, I’ll be opening up and linking to a bunch of deeply-locked LJ entries, chronicling what happened in real time. It looked like I was being fairly quiet online at the time; in fact, I was posting more frantically than I ever have in my life. But Jane was very private about it -- she always worried about people pitying her -- so I had to keep it quite locked-down at the time. Now, with a little distance, I think the genealogist and historian in her would prefer that the story be known. Please take it in that light, and remember her strength, not the frailty of her final days.

(I will only be unlocking my own entries, not hers -- her journal is her own, and I’m leaving it as she did. Forgive me for linking to some entries that will always be locked, often quite tightly, especially in the early history: this is as much for my future reference as anything.)

Timeline -- Introduction

As I write this, it’s exactly one year since Jane died. I’m doing reasonably well, but that’s still not easy, and it drives home that I have some unfinished business. At the funeral and the memorial service, I focused on telling people about how she lived -- that’s the most important part. But I also need to tell the story of how she died.

This isn’t going to be easy, either to write or read; I’ll be kind of surprised if I can get through it without breaking down a few times. I’m not going to fault anyone who wants to just skip it, and I’ll put it behind cut tags. But I need to get it out of my head: I need to know that the story is written down and known, so that I can move on from it. Also, it’s rather cathartic (and somehow very appropriate) to dredge through the history and thread it together into a coherent story for the first time. So there will be some other significant passings and events woven through here: this is partly a story of Jane’s life, partly of her death, and partly of how the past ten years have affected me.

So I’ll be serializing that in the coming days. Could take me anywhere from a couple of days to a month to write it down, depending on how things go. It’ll have the “Timeline” title and be tagged as jane throughout. It’s going to be in approximate chronological order, but often with broad dates: my memory for details is infamously bad, and I’m not going to make myself crazy figuring out precise dates. God bless LJ, for providing me with a record of much of it.

As part of that, I’ll be opening up and linking to a bunch of deeply-locked LJ entries, chronicling what happened in real time. It looked like I was being fairly quiet online at the time; in fact, I was posting more frantically than I ever have in my life. But Jane was very private about it -- she always worried about people pitying her -- so I had to keep it quite locked-down at the time. Now, with a little distance, I think the genealogist and historian in her would prefer that the story be known. Please take it in that light, and remember her strength, not the frailty of her final days.

(I will only be unlocking my own entries, not hers -- her journal is her own, and I’m leaving it as she did. Forgive me for linking to some entries that will always be locked, often quite tightly, especially in the early history: this is as much for my future reference as anything.)