Random spew

Now that the presidential candidate race is effectively over the media and public have found a new subject for pointless finger pointing: so-called special interests and lobbyists. Both McCain and Obama seem to be working furiously to distance themselves from these pariah phrases. To the average voter these words automatically conjure up images of corruption, waste, and exploitation. This is EXACTLY why most voters are complete MORONS!

If you're an Obama supporter what do you think of when you hear "special interests"? Probably groups like the religious right, the NRA, and the oil industry. When you see the word "lobbyist" you probably think of someone like Jack Abramoff making shady back room deals out of sight and against the best interests of the public. If you're a McCain supporter "special interests" probably conjures up images of gay marriage and gun bans.

Funny thing is when people think of "special interests" I bet they don't think of groups pushing to provide better benefits to our veterans or raising money for cancer research. People probably don't think of groups like the PTA or VFW as being lobbyists. The reality is they are. The PTA are lobbyists in exactly the same manner as the NRA. School funding is as much of a special interest as oil drilling. ANY cause - regardless of its perceived good or evil status - is a special interest and retains the services of lobbyists to ensure representation in the legislative process and to fight for funding in the budget.

The other thing too many people get wrong is to assume that lobbyists and special interests are affiliated along party lines. People assume that the oil industry only backs Republicans. In fact, Hillary Clinton has taken more money from the oil industry than all but a handful of Republicans. Most lobbyists pitch heavily to both parties. The reason for this is because unlike the pea-brained general public, they realize that when it comes to budgets and legislation it's not an issue of Republican versus Democrat or Left versus Right. Instead it's a battle between funding cancer research versus AIDS research or funding the Army more than the Navy or saving the crocodile instead of the grizzly bear. There's never enough funding for everything and so each special interest fights to maximize their slice of the pie.

The thing to remember in this political season is that both McCain and Obama are catering to special interests and both are listening to lobbyists.

Anthony Bourdain writes that Salumi is the "single greatest food serving and producing establishment on the West Coast." I've experienced it for myself and can safely say the man speaks the truth.

Salumi is the creation of Armandino Batali who opened the joint a couple of years after retiring as an engineer from Boeing. Food runs in the Batali family and his grandfather opened the first Italian food store in Seattle. Apparently his son is also a cook.

Behold the glory of pork!

Today my boss, a couple of coworkers, and their friends spent 3 hours at what can only be called a foodgasm. We reserved a private lunch in the back room of Salumi. To be clear, if you're looking for a fine dining experience including extravagant decor and china this is definitely NOT the place to go. The eight of us were squeezed into a little room wedged between the meat locker and the main room of Salumi. The table cloth was an orange vinyl affair straight off grandma's picnic table. This place is not where you take your hot date/escort/business client to try and impress them with your black card or expense account. Here it's all about the food and only the food. This is the way things should be.

It started simple enough: some bread, olive oil, olives and wine. Next up came the meat: a plate of various forms of cured pork goodness. This is the sort of spread that makes vegetarians cringe in horror. The highlight was a salami with lemongrass in it - truly a sublime delight. The smoked paprika salami was a close second. After this came the major bulk of the meal. Plates containing bruschetta with fresh mozzarella and basil, eggplant rolled and stuffed, some form of sliced pork stuffed with cheese, mushrooms roasted in a balsamic vinegar, and asparagus wrapped in pancetta with a citrus oil descended upon our table. Plates were passed around as it were Thanksgiving quickly by gasps of "you have to try this!!"

After a pause during which I contemplated angioplasty, defibrillators, and stretch pants the food resumed. This time it was slow cooked beef short rib (sans bone) in a red wine/tomato sauce served over pollenta. Having sampled members of the bovine and porcine families the meal went vegetarian (what? no more animals to slaughter for our gluttonous delight?!?) with a plate of spaghetti tossed in oil with golden raisins, pine nuts, and tomato. Finally, the meal ended with strawberries, parmigiano cheese and chestnut honey. It was good...so very, very good. Nothing was terribly fancy - no emulsion, foams or other foo-foo crap. Just the best possible ingredients assembled with care. It was well worth every penny!!

So what did you have for lunch?

Imagine you have two staple, liquid commodities - items used by nearly every American, every day. Both items require processing after extraction and need to be shipped by train and truck to their final point of consumer purchase.

However, these two items have a few distinct differences:
The first staple - let's refer to it as Substance A - is natural, can be harvested from nearly every state in the Union, is safe to handle and increases the general health of the populous. The second staple - let's call it Substance B - is a non-renewable substance found in very limited quantities in the US and instead must be harvested from parts of the world ruled by nations who are completely at odds with most of the basic freedoms US citizens take for granted. Because the substance is sourced from overseas it must be transported on enormous ships. Once delivered to our shores it requires extensive processing at a limited number of facilities. The processing is extremely polluting and toxic which means new processing facilities are difficult to build to local objections and environmental concerns. The product itself is highly explosive and must be handled with care. Consumption of the product creates enormous pollution problems that are directly related to the deaths of thousands of Americans every year.

Now given the above information which product should cost more: Substance A or Substance B? Naturally you'd think the healthy, renewable domestic substance would be less expensive. Sadly, you'd be wrong. So what are these substances? Substance A is orange juice while Substance B is gasoline. Last check OJ is still nearly $3.00 a gallon MORE than gasoline.

It's not just OJ that costs more than gas. Coffee, organic milk, soda, beer, and many other items consumed on a daily basis all cost more than gasoline. This just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Gas has to be pumped out of dinosaur mausoleums buried deep, deep under the surface of the earth using incredibly expensive tools. On top of that most oil reserves just happened to be located in parts of the world populated by people who are dead set against everything the USA believes in (treating women like people, electing our rulers, free speech, etc.) Consider this you have to wonder if God loves the USA as much as the Republicans seem to think! If we truly are the divinely blessed nation these right wing whack jobs think we are don't you think God would have given us all the oil instead of bestowing it upon a bunch of robe wearing heathens? Of course getting the oil out of the ground is just the first of many hurdles. From there you have to put it on enormous ships and haul it halfway around the planet to be processed. This presents a new problem in the refineries are smelly, polluting, eyesores that have a distressing tendency to occasionally explode. This means the public so in love with cheap gas is also highly opposed to building new refineries in their neighborhood and as a result we've pretty much stopped building them. Once you've managed to turn your vast vats of black gold into unleaded petrol you now have to put it in trucks and distribute it hundreds of thousands of filling stations all across the country. When the gasoline gets pumped into your car the end result is nasty, toxic emissions which are directly tied to a whole host of diseases many of which are fatal. Yet somehow despite all of this gasoline remains cheaper than orange juice which is grown on trees here in the good old USA and when consumed actually makes you healthier. Go figure!

My day job is that of a recruiter for a design studio. As such I spend a good chunk of my day looking at resumes and portfolios. One result of my job is that I'm quickly losing faith in the ability of my nation to continue to be a major power in the world. Why is that you ask? Simple: Americans are stupid! I am continually amazed at how many resumes I see that are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. My company recently hired an intern and we received several dozen resumes and cover letters from seniors and recent grads. A full 2/3 of these contained egregious spelling errors. Also these resumes were coming from students who were majoring in a communications field and included graduates of supposedly "good" schools such as Stanford, UC Berkeley, UW, USC, etc. What really floors me is how you can have spelling errors in this day and age of Word. All you need to do is turn the damn spell check feature on and pay attention. This isn't rocket science. While I'm beating this drum let me offer up a few tips on to keep your resume from landing in the circular file:

1. Get the name of the company right. Nothing kills your resume faster than getting wrong the name of the company you're applying to! Still, it's something I see on a very regular basis. People routinely misspell the name of the company I work for. Go to the company website, click on the Contact Us link and copy the name verbatim into your resume. For example, if you're applying for a job at Apple address the letter to Apple and not Apple Computer.
2. Don't use a chain cover letter. These have all the charm of a Dear Occupant letter. Worse yet, you run the risk of accidentally forgetting to change the company name. For example, if you're applying to a job at Apple don't have in your letter "I'm excited at the prospect of joining Microsoft"!
3. Don't rehash your resume in your cover letter. Use the cover letter to tell the recruiter who you are and what makes you human.
   
4. "Dear Sir/Madame" is simply another way of saying "I'm too lazy to contact your company and ask for the name of the hiring contact". Granted, if you're applying to a really big company such as Microsoft it's impossible to say who will end up seeing your resume. That said, most companies are not that big. Pick up the phone, call them, and ask who is in charge of recruiting. You might even get lucky and get a chance to actually talk to the person and make your case directly.
   
5. Avoid superlatives and throw away statements. My pet peeve on resumes is "Outstanding attention to detail". Seriously, are you really dense enough to think this will help you stand out from anyone? Do you actually believe there are people who put "Average attention to detail" or "Mediocre attention to detail" on their resumes? If you're going to make such qualitative statements on your resume you need to include some cold, hard facts to back them up otherwise it just looks like padding.
   
6. Name, rank and serial number is acceptable only if you're a POW. If you're applying for a job you need to actually include some details on your resume beyond job title, company and employment dates. Designers are especially bad about this. I don't know if it's some misplaced minimalist design tendency but not including a paragraph or two describing in detail what you did at a job doesn't look good.
   
7. Stay focused. I don't need to know and really don't care that you folded t-shirts at The Gap if you're applying to be an account director. Recent grads and people with limited work experience feel this need to include every part-time job they held since they age of 16. Bad idea. It simply reminds me how junior you really are. If you're a recent grad you might want to include one college job just to prove you know how to show up for work and not get fired. Beyond that focus your strengths elsewhere. More experienced workers should avoid listing any work experience more than 10 years in the past. This doesn't make you look senior, it just makes you look old and don't think for a second that age discrimination isn't alive and well. If you've had several jobs in different fields take the time to edit the resume and only list the skills demonstrated that are pretty universal or translate across different fields. Don't list hobbies, marital status, or anything else not directly work related. Only real exception to that would be charity work or military service.
   
8. Unless you're a recent grad don't bother putting your education at the top of your resume. You're not going to impress anyone even if you did go to a top school. What you've done with your education is much more important. Keep in mind that the Unabomber attended Harvard at 16, earned a PhD and taught at UC Berkeley while Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are both college dropouts! Who would you rather hire - the dropout or the nut job with the fancy degree?
   
9. Don't forget to acknowledge others. Teamwork and the ability to fit into a team are huge factors when it comes to making hiring decisions in most organizations. While your resume should highlight your accomplishments be sure to also point out instances where you worked as a team.
   
10. Don't send a resume without a cover letter. This pretty much tells me you're simple spamming and not really that interested in working for my company.
    

Gas prices are climbing ever skyward and it seems my fellow countrymen are going absolutely nanners at the prospect of having to pay more for gasoline than they pay for milk, orange juice or bottled water. While rational minds would point out concepts like supply and demand that won’t do for your typically apoplectic fat ass who now can’t afford that third slice of pizza for lunch because he just had to pay an extra $30 to fuel up his Ford Fuck-U-Mobile. No, no someone is responsible for this and it’s not the poor consumer. The general public – and a few shit for brains politicians (including Hillary) – have decided to blame it on the oil companies. Why not – we all know that every penny of profits from the sale of oil goes directly into the pockets of a handful of oil executives hiding away in golden palaces where they spend their days clubbing seals and eating puppies.

This would be great except for one tiny fact: it completely ignores reality. The reality of the current situation is that oil companies are not making obscene profits nor are they gouging in any reasonable sense of the word. On top of that most of the profits are not going to handful of puppy eating and seal clubbing executives.

Yeah, Exxon turned a profit of $40.6 billion last year which sounds absolutely obscene. However people who rail against this don't seem to know what they're talking about. As a percentage, Exxon had a net profit margin of 10.04% for 2007. For sake of comparison, Target posted a 4.5% net profit margin, Starbucks posted 7.15%, and big evil Wal-Mart posted only 3.51%. 10.04% is a pretty good profit margin but hardly obscene by any stretch and utterly fails to support any claims of price gouging. Anyone who wants to criticize this number really needs to go turn off their iPod and go after Apple. Apple posted a gross profit of $8.1 billion which in turn gave them a net profit margin of 14.56%. Next time you whine about obscene profits stop and take a look at your iPod! Also last I checked Steve Jobs wasn't exactly giving away his fortune to help make the world a better place. All of this information is public record and can be easily checked on Google Finance (Google by the way posted a net profit margin of 25.33% for 2007!)

As for who actually gets these profits, again most people don't seem to have a clue. To read most reports you'd think all those profits are going to Dick Cheney and a small group of fat white guys who are busy gang raping the environment. While I'm quite certain Cheney is the Prince of Darkness that has little to do with Exxon or any of the other large oil companies. Reality is these are publicly held companies. That means chances are the people pissing most about the obscene profits are also the ones benefiting from them! Exxon is one of the most widely held stocks in the world. If you have a 401k, pension or any other form of retirement savings there is a VERY high chance you are an Exxon shareholder and thus are receiving part of those profits you're whining about. This is especially true if you work for the government (teacher, firefighter, park ranger, social worker, etc.) since institutions hold the bulk of Exxon's shares. Also the total compensation (including shares) for 2007 for the CEO of Exxon (Rex Tillerson) was "only" $16.7 million. He held "only" 536,744 shares (out of more than 5 billion) at the end of 07.

People may not like to hear this information but it is very much the cold hard economic reality. I despise driving, commute by public transit and greatly prefer to walk or ride my bicycle. However, I don't let that distort the reality of the situation. Exxon's numbers only appear huge because they've had huge sales - not because they're price gouging or raking in an obscenely high profit margin. To my fellow Americans who can’t stop whining about gas prices I have the following to say: STOP YOUR FUCKING WHINING YOU SNIVELING DOUCHEBAG. If you don’t like gas prices take public transit, car pool, or ride a bike. Don’t piss and moan about a problem that you created! A motorist bitching about gas prices and calling for the head of oil execs is about as intelligent as a crackhead getting pissed at the head of a drug cartel.

I've been watching the news about the numerous airline delays and have to say I'm grateful our country didn't follow in the foot steps of Europe and Japan and waste our money on high speed passenger rail!! Imagine if we were like our former colonial masters in Britain who can travel from London to Paris (200+ miles) in less than 2.5 hours for $60.00 and do it all without being forced to take their shoes off for "security". That would truly be terrible. So much better to have delays, long lines, cancellations, high prices, cramped seats, terrible service and the vital security of shoe removel than to have to endure the shame of relying on primitive trains!!

If I was forced to take a train from my home in Seattle to San Francisco it would take me 3.5 hours and deny me the opportunity to take my shoes off to stretch my toes at security. Worse yet, I would actually get there on time denying me the opportunity to spend hours at SeaTac airport on the (likely) chance my flight gets delayed. Imagine the lost shopping and fine dining opportunities! Lucky for me, I'm an American which means I get to 2 hours in the air, another hour in the airport checking in and going through security, close to an hour taxiing on the runways, and a couple of more hours getting to/from the airport. Better yet, I get to spend $300 to do it unlike those foolish Europeans who only get to spend 1/5 that amount. Of course the best part is that I'll be elbow to elbow (literally) with my fellow citizens thanks to the close quarter seating arrangements on most airplanes. Only thing that could possibly make the experience better is the thrilling (albeit remote) possibility of plummeting to the ground in a giant fireball. Nothing like the chance of a terrifying and violent death to make you feel alive!

Yes indeed I'm so truly proud to be a citizen of such an advanced nation as ours! I imagine the Japanese, French, and Brits must be envious of our air travel system as they sit, legs stretched out, on their primitive 200mph trains. Thank you politicians and corporations for protecting us from the foolish waste of money known as rail travel!!  Our lives are so much better for it. Thank you Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush for setting aside your political differences and uniting in the effort to keep our proud nation free of the scourge of rail travel! God bless America!!

Yesterday was the Rone van Vlaanderen better known to people in the English speaking world as the Tour of Flanders. It's the largest annual sporting event in Belgium (granted, it's a small country) and arguably the second best single day bike race of the year behind Paris-Roubaix. This year's edition was the 92nd running and it was both epic and historic.

The race started with horrible weather including hail. Even after the hail relented the weather was still very cold and very wet. Perfect weather for the hardmen of cycling! The Spring Classics are renown for crappy weather and brutal courses and the Ronde is no exception. The course is a winding 264km jaunt through the Flemish countryside. What makes the Ronde so hard (beyond the weather) are the two dozen cobblestone stretches. Cobbles are nothing new to cycling and Paris-Roubaix is famous for them. What makes them so different in the Ronde is that many of cobbled sections occur in the middle of murderously steep climbs. We're not talking the gradual but long climbs you find in the Alps. Instead we're talking about climbs that are never more than 2200m but whose grades exceed 20%. If you're not at the front of one of these climbs chances are very good you'll be forced off the bike and have to walk up the hill. Perhaps the most famous of these climbs is the Koppenberg which is only 600 meters long but has an average grade of 11.6% and a maximum grade of 22%. The climb earned a well deserved notoriety in 1987 when Jesper Skibby was leading the pack up the climb and slipped on the cobbles. The road is basically in a trench which means cars can't simply swerve to avoid obstacles and the racer director's car went right over Jesper's bike while he was still attached to it, barely managing not to run over his legs.

This year Tom Boonen lead the pack up the Koppenberg. Tom is the current star of Belgian cycling and the lion of Flanders flags were certainly flying as he charged up the 'berg. Not long after the Koppenberg Boonen's team mate, Stijn Devolder took off. He controlled the race from this point forward and crossed the line resplendent in the black, yellow and red of the Belgian national champion. It was without a doubt the greatest day of his life and the Belgians were clearly elated to see their national champion win what is to them the biggest race of the year. American George Hincapie finished in 5th showing he is on track for another strong run at Paris-Roubaix in two weeks. Hopefully this year George will get the team support he deserves. Finally, Juan Antonio Flecha made history by becoming the first Spaniard to stand on the podium with his third place finish.

Everyone who deserves the title cyclist knows what happened on the Gavia Pass on 5 June, 1988***. As we near the 20th anniversary of one of the greatest days in American cycling history I wound up having my own mini-Gavia on my commute home. Yesterday was opening day for baseball season. It was also opening day for the Seattle Mariners, the closest thing we in Seattle have to a professional baseball team. Naturally, when one thinks of opening day one thinks of sunshine and warm weather. But alas, this is Seattle. Instead of sun and warmth we had rain and cold. In most parts of the country this would keep cyclists at home. Here in Seattle we don't let this get in our way. As I rolled away from my downtown office the rain started to fall harder and colder. As I began the short climb up Dexter towards the Fremont bridge the rain started becoming more...solid. Yep, it was snowing. Or was it hail? Not really sure. I do know it was cold, solid, and stung like angry bees as I descended towards the bridge. Once through Fremont I began the gentle climb up 8th. Again the slush continued to fall. My double layers of wool and Sugoi knickers were treating me right but my knit gloves were definitely not warm enough. Right as I turned onto 80th for the final few blocks did the weather relent to the point that it was merely raining. When I got within 3 blocks of home the rain finally stopped (naturally!) All in all a wonderful commute home.

*** If you don't know about the Gavia Pass get yer sorry, Johnny-come-lately ass some edumacation at: http://www.hampsten.com/Bikes/ClassicRoad/5June.pdf

We sold our house late last week. The house was on the market a whopping 6 days and we got a full price offer. We did decide to credit the buyers $2k because the inspection pointed out some legitimate issues in the basement. Still, when I look on Redfin, Windermere, and other sites I see a lot of houses which have been languishing on the market for a month or more. Now I'm no real estate expert but I can think of a few reasons why some of these places are not moving.

1. Cost. If you're house is on a busy street don't expect the same price as the house one block north of you on a quiet street. Within one block of our house is another house for sale that went on the market the same week as ours. It has yet to receive an offer and I'm not the least bit surprised. They want $525,000 for this place. That's $80,000 more than what our house sold for. 3 doors down from our house is another house that just went on the market for $475,000. Not only is the newer house cheaper but it's also nicer inside and has more square footage. If I were the owner of the $525,000 house I'd seriously think about lowering the price - a lot. If you look at comps for the entire neighborhood $525,000 isn't high. However, this ignores the fact that this particular house is on a very busy street with high traffic including 4-6 buses an hour rumbling past your front door. This is one of the major flaws in relying on comps.
   
2. Aesthetics. We recently looked at a house the could well be known as The House Formerly Known As Prince. The house is painted bright purple. That might work on a classic Victorian overlooking Alamo Square in San Francisco but it doesn't fly when you're house is a 1940's box home in Seattle. Amazingly, the house gets worse on the inside. The bedrooms are bright yellow, blue or orange. The stairs are bright red with bright green trim. Paint is cheap. If you're putting your place up for sale throw on a fresh coat of paint in a nice, neutral color. On top of all that, the kitchen features Ikea cabinets that would be very appropriate in a modern house but are terribly out of place on a 1940's era house. Ditto for the Ikea light fixtures throughout. When you have an old house you either need to completely gut it and start from scratch to "modernize" it or better yet simply try to choose period specific updates. No surprise this house has been on the market for more than a month!
   
3. Ditch the fish eye lens. I don't know why real estate agents think people are so stupid. Do you really think taking a picture with a fish eye lens is going to work? Yeah, it might make the place look more spacious in the listing but when we actually show up at the open house you better believe we're going to be mighty disappointed to realize the cavernous looking living room on the listing photo is actually barely big enough for a sofa.
   
4. Staging. When we put our house on the market we seriously emptied the place. The normally packed book cases were almost completely emptied. Our burgeoning closets were seriously thinned. Much of the clutter in the basement went into storage. All our personal knick knacks and bric-a-brac was removed from the shelves. You need to remove yourself from the house as much as possible. The more of your personality present, the less likely someone will be able to envision themselves living in the house and the less likely they are to make an offer. Investing a few bucks and putting some of your stuff into storage can easily pay for itself. As an added bonus, it's that much less crap you'll have to pack when the time comes to move.
   

Again, I'm no Donald Trump but I'd wager good money that following some of this advice might actually help sell some of these wrecks. What blows me away is how few agents seem to be able to persuade their clients to take these simple steps. The days when you could take some ugly heap of bricks, stick out a For Sale sign and then wait for the offers to roll in are definitely behind us. At the same time people still need homes and nicely presented homes at reasonable prices will still go in a matter of days. If you're house isn't selling that fast you probably need to work on it.

The New York times recent ran an article detailing the grim state of the US prison population. Know I'll be the first to admit that our nation has a huge crime problem compared to most of the industrialized world. In the first sentence that article claimed that "More than 1 in 100 American adults are behind bars". This is the sort of number that really gets your attention and it got me to thinking.

The Seattle metropolitan area has over 3 million residents. Assuming 1/4 are minors that still leaves us with 2.25 million. If 1 in 100 were in jail that would mean more than 22,000 inmates just for the Seattle area. I did a quick check on the Washington State Department of Corrections site and it turns out for the entire state - not just the Seattle area - there are fewer than 16,000 inmates. That's WAY below 1 in 100. Granted that only covers the state prisons and not those operated by the Feds, counties, cities, etc.

I decided to up the numbers to the national level. According the US Census Bureau the US population is 300 million. 27.5% of this population - 82.5 million people - are 19 and under. That leaves 217.5 million adults. If 1 in 100 were in jail that would mean an inmate population of 2,175,000. That's well above the 1.6 million quoted by the Times. This means one of the statistics quoted by the Times is wrong. Either we have more than 1 in 100 adults in prison (which I doubt) or we have 1.6 million inmates (a bit more believable).

This is the problem I have with editorials that quote numbers. All too often numbers mentioned in articles seem to contradict themselves and this in turn casts doubt on the validity of the point being made by the writer. I've seen this in editorials covering subjects ranging from the environment to the war in Iraq to immigration. My question is why do writers do this? If you're trying make a persuasive argument for a position why do you include numbers that don't easily add up? It just seems very sloppy, especially for people who claim to be professional journalists.