Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Female Pakistani minister shot dead for 'breaking Islamic dress code'

From the UK's "Times Online" comes this story:

Female Pakistani minister shot dead for 'breaking Islamic dress code'

A Pakistani minister and woman’s activist has been shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.

Zilla Huma Usman, the minister for social welfare in Punjab province and an ally of President Pervez Musharraf, was killed as she was about to deliver a speech to dozens of party activists, by a “fanatic”, who believed that she was dressed inappropriately and that women should not be involved in politics, officials said.

Mrs Usman, 35, was wearing the shalwar kameez worn by many professional women in Pakistan, but did not cover her head.

...

The gunman, Mohammad Sarwar, was overpowered by the minister’s driver and arrested by police. A stone mason in his mid 40s, he is not thought to belong to any radical group but is known for his fanaticism. He was previously held in 2002 in connection with the killing and mutilation of four prostitutes, but was never convicted due to lack of evidence.

Mr Sarwar appeared relaxed and calm when he told a television channel that he had carried out God’s order to kill women who sinned. “I have no regrets. I just obeyed Allah’s commandment,” he said, adding that Islam did not allow women to hold positions of leadership. “I will kill all those women who do not follow the right path, if I am freed again,” he said.

It's just so outrageous and evil I can barely comprehend it.

So far I have not seen any outrage expressed about this. You'd think that somone, some human rights organization somewhere, could put out a press release or something. And given that the fanatic committed this murder in the name of Islam, wouldn't you think that somone in a position of authority in the Islamic faith would speak out against what's being done in Islam's name? So far, I haven't seen any. At least no statements have made it into Google's search engine yet. In the land of free speech, has Keith Ellison, the Islamic member of the House of Representatives spoken out? Nothing on his official U.S. House web site. No press release. No statement. No nothing.


True. Ms Usman was a relatively minor political official in a country far far away. It's easy for the news of her death to fall below the din and roar of daily world politics. And people aren't obligated to issue a press release everytime an innocent person is gunned down in the streets. Still. I wish someone would speak out and lament her death. It would help me feel a little bit better about it. A little bit at least.


The only silver lining I can latch on to is that, in theory, Pakistan is a secular state with an (officially at least) liberal, democratic government committed to protecting human rights. Mr. Sarwar was apprehended and arrested. Hopefully he will receive every bit of justice he deserves. We shall see.


And that's the reminder I take from the story. The reason we institute secular governments is to create an environment where people of different religous beliefs and backgrounds can coexist peacefully. I hope Pakistan lives up to this ideal. And I hope for secular democratic governments in areas of the world were such religious fanaticism leads to the murder of innocent people.


I think I will set up a Google News Search Filter for Sarwar's name and see if there are any reports on the legal proceedings. Should be interesting. I can do at least that much to bear witness to the injustice.


Monday, February 19, 2007

Blinders, Very Narrow Blinders

From this article in the Oscoda Press, which I believe is in Michigan.

Ousted Alcona treasurer arrested
by Holly Nelson

HARRISVILLE - Thomas Katona, 56, the former treasurer of Alcona County and a resident of Harrisville, was arrested Tuesday, Jan. 16, for allegedly embezzling more than $1.2 million of county funds to invest in the Nigerian fraud scam, according to Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox.

Katona was arraigned in 81st District Court on Jan. 17 on eight counts of embezzlement by a public official and one count of forgery. If convicted, he will face a maximum of 14 years in prison.

According to the attorney general and court records, while Katona was vacationing in London, England, in November, employees of the treasurer’s office were notified by National City Bank that Katona allegedly made eight unauthorized wire transfers of county funds, totalling $186,500, during August and September.
Later on in the same news story:

A forensic audit of Alcona County records was conducted by the Michigan Department of Treasury in December, revealing a shortage of $1,236,700, according to Cox, who noted that Alcona County’s yearly budget is approximately $4 million.
So basically this guy not only fell for the Nigerian fraud scam, he embezzeled over 25% of the county's public funds to do so. (The story indicates that he also "invested" around $72,000 of his own money.)

I can think of a dozen snarky things to say about the intelligence of this guy and even more about greed. But these sorts of stories hit a point of absurdity after which I start to feel sorry for the guy and I start to wonder, how awful was this guy's life that he started to believe a) that this Nigerian thing wasn't a fraud and b) that he'd get away with embezzling a quarter of the county budget?

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Stuck In Traffic #1: Disapproval, Television, Otters

February 18, 2007. On Bush's Approval Ratings, Emerging Business Models for TV, My Third Grade Itch, and Musical Guest: Bryan Cates

http://mp3.stuckintraffic.com/sitp0001.mp3

Links:
Bush's Approval Ratings by Polling Report
The Economist Article on The Future of TV
Tourist Info for Monterey California
Bryan Cates' soul music web site

Legal:
The Taproot Theme music is "Fake Out" by Derek K. Miller of penmachine.com
The bumper music is "Plain Loafer" by Kevin Macleod and is used under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
"Don't Make Me Crawl" is by Bryan Cates and is used with permission
This podcast is copyright 2007 by Calvin Powers, all rights reserved.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Third Grade Itch

I had to go to a business conference in Monterey California last week. I'd been asked to speak at it months ago but had not thought too much about it until the last minute. There were only two things I knew about Monterey before going out there.

First, Monterey was the setting for the famous John Steinbeck novel from the 1940's called Cannery Row. The title comes from the fact that Monterey is located on the California coastline and had several huge fish processing plants there, notably sardine packing plants. There was a movie made out of it not too long ago, starring Nick Nolte as I recall.

It's been years and years since I read the book, but to tell the truth, I remember it being kind of a sad and depressing book. I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that all of the characters are losers, but I would say that they mostly lacked ambition. They were all resigned to a very meager place in life without much yearning to make better for themselves. And I dunno, not in a contented Zen sort of way, but in a sad dreary sort of way. So in my mind, being the location for Cannery Row is not exactly something I'd expect Monterey to be proud of. But I did note that the hotel I was staying at was located on a street called Cannery Row. So there was at least some acknowledgment of their place in literary history, humble though it may be.

The thing I didn't realize about Monterey is that it is something of a golf mecca. I'm not a golfer myself, but my Dad is and my brother-in-law is so I hear about golf things every now and then. I knew there was a semi-mystical place in golf called Pebble Beach. I knew that golfers spoke of it in reverent tones. But honestly I had no idea that it was in Monterey. And as it turns out, the major gold tournament, called U.S. PGA Tour's Pebble Beach National Pro-Am had just wrapped up the day before I arrived. Several friends and colleagues had asked me if I was going to do any golfing while I was there, which I at first thought was kind of a dumb question because they all knew that I do not play golf. But eventually there were enough of these passing references that I got a clue that Monterey is a big place for golf courses including the Pebble Beach course. On the flight out there a little old lady that I sat next to told me all about the many golf courses in the area. I was a bit sad and embarrassed to then tell her that I don't play after she'd so enthusiastically told me about all the good courses in the area.

So I got to the conference hotel and spent my first day doing conferency things. And that night, instead of doing the semi-obligatory group dinner outing thing, I decided to strike out on my own. Not so much because I wanted to get away from my colleagues, because as a rule, it was a great crowd. But I just wanted to explore the place on my own. I did not want to be pinned down in a restaurant for the next few hours. So I began to wander around the Cannery Row area of Monterey. There were statues of Steinbeck and banners honoring him so that people would remember why Monterey is famous for that. But I have to say the whole Cannery Row vibe was touristified quite a bit. Lots of trendy little shops and restaurant with Cannery Row themed names. There were several big warehouse looking buildings that looked like they might have been remnants of the old fish processing plants. But I don't think they were. I think they were constructed to sort of look like them. And honestly, think about it. Would anyone want to build a tourist attraction in a run down fish processing plant. What could you do with that? Possibly you could turn the old warehouse into a performance space. Or subdivide it into a mini-mall. But there's just not that much history in a fish processing plant that you'd want to preserve. Turn it into a museum? A tribute to an industry that went obsolete? It's a difficult problem for the local tourist board I'm sure. But they'd done the best they could. And despite my ragging on it for being touristified. it was a pleasant place to walk around and browse. They had several vantage points where you could look out over the bay.

It turns out that one of the most notable things about Monterey, after the Steinbeck association and the golf stuff I suppose, is the marine life. And in particular, the sea otters that live in the bay. One of the big attractions in the Cannery Row area is the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Various friends had told me that it was well worth the steep price to go to. So on my last day of being at the conference, I played hooky for a few hours to watch the marine life in the bay and go see the aquarium.

There aren't any beaches to speak of in Monterey Bay. It's mostly rocky at the water's edge. Plus it was in February, so it was more than a bit chilly. But as I said, the Cannery Row area and the hotels along that stretch had walkways overlooking the bay which made for easy bay watching.

So what was there to see. Well the first thing you noticed was the rocky shore line covered with various barnacles and and sea plants. The looked old and slimy messy. They looked like plants that were hanging on for dear live trying to get enough sun and nutrients to stay alive. And it made the whole shoreline look ancient and alien. The next thing you noticed are the birds. Uh, I could not begin to tell you what kind they were. Hey, you want to get educated, go check out a book from the library. The best I can say is that they looked like various types of gulls but with some distinct pigeon heritage in them because they ran around squabbling with each other and scouring the buildings and sidewalks for food just like pigeons. But mostly they congregated on rock outcroppings and squinted their eyes into the breeze and looked like they were cold. Not that any of them complained directly but I think their coldness contributed to general crankiness because they were constantly fussing and squawking at each other. You could also see various birds floating in the water out in the bay. Not sure if they were the same birds I saw on the rocks. I don't think they were. But they were far enough out that I could not get a good look at them. Anyway, they would sit in the water, very still, bobbing along with the waves like a dark grey rubber ducky and then out of the blue, for no apparent reason, one would dive down into the water. Looking for something to eat I suppose. When they came back up the remained just as still as they had been before. I have no idea if their dive had been successful or not. No visible eating was going on. So it had this effect of those duck games you see at the carnival where they float along and then sink under the water for a bit when you shoot them.

The real attraction in Monterey Bay though is the sea otters. Cute and fuzzy. They are on all the tourist brochures. A species pressed into service for PR purposes. Well, it's better than dead sardines, right. Now when I was a kid, back in 3rd grade or so. I was fascinated by otters, both the fresh water kind and the sea water kind. I remember reading as many books as I could about otters and there were several young kid fiction books about them in our school library, which I'd read over and over. I think part of my fascination with was due to the fact that they were sleek, and sly, and clever, and quick. All of the things I wasn't. I was pudgy, had bad coordination, and slow. Of course I didn't think of it in those sorts of terms back then. In third grade you aren't so self- analytical. But all I knew was that I thought they were cool. Well, a few decades on, I'm still somewhat pudgy and not very good at the whole hand-eye coordination thing and I lumber around just as slowly as ever. So the fascination with otters is still there and I was really looking forward to seeing the otters in Monterey Bay.

It took a while The hotel staff assured me they were out there and that you could see them without binoculars on a daily basis. So the morning I played hooky from the conference I spent the better part of the morning looking out over the water hoping to see sea otters. There was lots of stuff out there. The aforementioned birds, the occasional fishing boat passing by, bits of rock outcroppings sticking up out of the water. All very nice and I took lots of pictures of them. But for the longest time the only other thing I saw out there in the bay were bits and pieces of logs, some sort of driftwood or debris floating around out there. After about an hour of this, I was starting to get bored and disappointed. And then as I was watching a particular log drift by on the current, it suddenly sprang to life, doubled over and dove under water. huh? That was no log, that had been an otter all along, I just never realized it. It was far enough out in the water that I could not see any details at all. Just a black lump of something floating in the water. But once I realized what I was looking for, I could see quite a few of them out there. I asked some of the folks nearby if I was seeing what I thought I was seeing and a kid told me that they float on their backs in the water while the break open muscles and eat them. That triggered a whole flood of third grade otter stories. I knew that. I used to know that anyway, back in the day. So I was pretty excited that I was actually seeing live otters even though they were way out in the bay and they looked like nothing more than floating logs.

Next stop was the Monterey Bay Aquarium. A fantastic facility and my friends recommendations were spot on. The jellyfish exhibit alone was worth the price of admission. I got some great pictures of the various jelly fish in the tanks. Truly bizarre alien life forms if there were ever any. They also had huge gazillion gallon tanks full of fish that normally live out in the deep waters, filled with plenty of sharks and tuna and sunfish and all kinds of fish. One think I learned about the deep water fish is that their size is actually a defense mechanism. The have to grow as big as possible as fast as possible to avoid being eaten by their predators.

Another of the aquarium highlights was the octopus. I'd seen an octopus once before, in a marine museum in Australia. And my experience with the octopus in the Monterey Bay Aquarium was the same as my previous experience. An octopus is just about the scariest animal you will ever have cause to encounter. You can just look at them and tell that a) they are very intelligent and b) they are sizing you up. Yes, it may be in a tank behind glass, but when you make eye contact with the thing, you can tell it's trying to figure out if it could take you down in a fight.

So the octopus is not the kind of creature you want on the front of the the tourist brochures. You want otters. Those warm blooded mammals that play around in the water and have those endearing whiskers. Well the Monterey Bay Aquarium folks aren't stupid. They know what people want to see. So they have a big sea otter exhibit with two otters there to entertain the crowds. And they didn't fail to please. Unlike so many animal exhibits where the animals basically sleep the whole time between feedings, the otters at the aquarium exhibit were reasonably lively. They were always doing something. Always investigating something. And there was a sign at the exhibit that said that the otters undergoing "training" sessions at least once a day with staff there at the aquarium. Not so much because they need to be trained to do anything, but just because it keeps them from being bored and lethargic. I can relate to that. I was able to get several pictures of the otters there at the aquarium. But somehow it didn't quite satisfy me. It didn't quite satisfy the urge to commune with otters the way I'd dream t in the third grade. Having them in a cage at the aquarium was nice but they weren't in the wild.

So earlier in the day they were too far away, at the aquarium they were too close and too caged in, despite the fact that they seemed good natured. After I left the aquarium I went back outside to the overlook area behind the aquarium and stood around with a bunch of school kids half heartedly looking out over the bay for more otters. Like before I was able to see the ones very far away. But I didn't even try to take pictures of them. In fact I didn't even turn the camera on because I'd taken way to many bump in the water pictures earlier in the day.

Well, you can see where this story is heading. Yep. I did in fact see another otter that morning. Probably less than 50 feet away in the bay. Swimming around a rock outcropping. He stuck his head and neck up out of the water just like they do on the front of all the tourist brochure and scanned those of us in the crowd at the lookout point. Apparently it judged that there was no food forthcoming from the crowd and it dove. I tried to watch for where it was going to come back up. I frantically turned on the camera to try to take a picture of it. But no such luck. None of us saw it again. But that quick glimpse, even without the picture satisfied that third grader itch inside me to see the otters I'd dream t about and forgotten about for so many decades. And I couldn't care less that I didn't get a picture out of it.

How I Want My TV

There is an interesting article in the latest issue of The Economist about the convergence of computers and TV and what the business model of that convergence will look like. Briefly, the article discusses three models:

Pay Per Show: In this model, you pay for each show you download. Once you've paid and downloaded it, you can do pretty much whatever you want with it. Burn it to DVD, lave it on your hard drive, move it to your iPod, etc. The Economist notes that this is the model Apple has established with the iTunes.

All-you-can-eat: This is the model being established by Netflix and some others. Basically you pay a fee for access to a service and you can watch all the content from that service that you want. In this model, they generally stream your selected show to your TV and there isn't a way to permanently store the show for later watching in the future.

Free: This is the model being implemented by Joost a new peer to peer protocol being developed by the same guys who brought you KaZaA and Skype. In this model, the content will be free just like TV is today but it will contain commercials. Not so many as current TV. They are claiming 3 minutes per hour. Joost will have things called "channels" but they won't be programmed to a schedule. They will in effect be play lists of TV shows which you can pick from.

Of the three, Pay Per Show is the one that comes closest to describing what I want. I guess my attitude on this is at we're all paying for our TV in various ways now. In theory, TV is free, but in practice, we all get that cable bill or satellite bill every month. So my opinion on the matter is that I want to minimize the amount of my payment that goes to infrastructure for delivering the content and maximize the amount of my payment that goes to the writers, actors, and other creative people that actually produce the content. (And for the record, I include producers as being part of the creative team too since they effectively have to buy in to the vision of the show and assume the financial risks).

What I want is TV that works just like a combination of a Tivo and the RSS subscription model used by podcasts and video podcasts, Let's call it the RSS model. So today I can brows the internet and find all kinds of interesting podcasts and video podcasts. Sometimes I find them by word of mouth from friends, sometimes I find them by browsing directories of podcasts. Sometimes I just run across them on various sites. Regardless, once I've found a podcast I like, I can basically subscribe to it with a single click. No more difficult than clicking a hyper-link. OK, well, in practice it's actually a little more complicated than that. But still, it's pretty darn easy.

The thing that is appealing to me about that model is that _anyone_ can do it. Everyone is on equal footing. Just like anyone can have a blog, anyone can be a TV producer. The same mechanism can be used by CBS and NBC to produce and distribute their hot new shows. The same mechanism can be used by the local amateur theater group to distribute videos of their production. The same mechanism could be used by the corner church to distribute video of their Sunday services. A key fundamental feature of the RSS model is that no one has a monopoly on the distribution infrastructure.

Currently as far as I am aware, virtually no one requires payment for RSS subscriptions. But it is technically possible work out billing and usage and payment options into the RSS technology. This gives me the most flexibility. In the RSS model, I could choose to subscribe only to free content, or I could choose to pay money in exchange for a subscription to my favorite TV show. And in the RSS model, my payment would go directly to the people who are producing what I enjoy. No more paying money to the cable industry as a whole and letting money trickle back to the various cable TV channels, some of whom I like and some of whom I despise.

Once I've done a one click subscribe and possible made a payment to receive the show. I want the episodes to get downloaded to my "Tivo" and stay there for as long as I want. I might want to watch an episode once or twice or 5 times. I might want to burn it to some other media for long term storage so I can watch it over and over again. I can accept license agreements that prohibit me from giving away licensed content to my friends. But when I pay for a show, I expect that I have it available to watch whenever I want to.

In the great TV/Computer convergence movement, an RSS model would favor the computer side of the convergence. And frankly, that has always made the most sense to me. I can imagine computers getting smarter about content distribution and understanding how TV is encoded. That's largely what we have today. We mostly just need to scale up the capacity of personal computers to accommodate the amount of video we're talking about. On the other hand, I can't really see TV's getting smarter to the point of being able to do all this. And even if they did, what would they appear to be if not a networked computer on the web?

So in the long run, an RSS model for TV content would mean that your TV is eventually replaced by a "media center" PC and that thing that displays the video will no longer have a cable TV connection, or a satellite dish connection. It will simply be a very expensive, high quality monitor for your home server.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Hey W., We Need To Talk

So President Bush's Approval ratings are nearing a record low for a sitting U.S. President. That must be bad. Really bad. According to the PollingReport.com, which summarizes approval/disapproval surveys from a variety of nes sources, Bush's job approval ratings are hovering somewhere in the low 30s. Call it 33% for the sake of argument. Basically 2 out of 3 people claim that they disapprove of how well Bush is doing "his job." How tragic. It's like failing a test isn't it? I mean 100% is an "A", 60% is "Failing" so 33% must be abysmally, embarassingly bad, right? At least that's the impression we get from the news these days.

But I don't think it's quite fair. To be sure, the higher the approval rating the better. If President Bush had a 100% approval rating, it would be something to brag about. It's easy to see that the higher the approval rating the better. So why isn't it fair to lambast him when his approval rating is so low?

Sometimes I think it's legitimate to pin bad approval ratings on the President. Sometimes it's his own fault. You get caught in an intrigue to secretly record your political enemies and then illegally cover it up. You get caught data mining FBI files for dirt you can use against your political opponents. Fine. You deserve to be have approval numbers in the toilet.

But sometimes bad approval numbers can be out of your control. Sometimes it's impossible to have good approval numbers. Let's look at a hypothetical example:

Suppose a leader is faced with some tough issue and there are two courses of action he can take. In the best case scenario, The course of action is clear cut and _everyone_ can agree on the right course of action. In this case, it's easy for the leader to get a 100% approval rating. He just chooses the course of action that everyone agrees with. But there are at least two cases in which the President's approval rating to end up significantly less than 100%.

Suppose that two courses of action have roughly equal arguments for and against them. They each have their good points and each have their bad points. It's quite possible that the people who are voting on the leader's approval are themselves divided roughly equally. As illustrated below:




In this scenario, we can see that no matter which course of action the leader takes, approximately 50% of the people voting on his approval rating are going to disapprove and approximately 50% are going to approve. So on a 100% scale, the maximum approval rating the leader can hope to get is 50%.

The situation is even worse if there are multiple courses of action and the people are divided among all the different courses of action. In a scenario in which there are four courses of action and the people are legitimately divided among all four, then the best the leader can hope for is a 25% approval rating because 3/4 of the people are going to prefer their chosen course of action over the course of action the leader chose.




There's another scenario in which the leader's approval ratings can be terrible through no fault of his own. Suppose there are two courses of action and 98% of the people choose one option and 2% of the people favor another course of action. It would be easy for the leader to choose the more popular course of action and garner a 98% approval rating. But what if that course of action is just plain _wrong_? What if 98% of the people think the leader should go kick a dog and 2% of the people don't? Should the president go kick a dog just to get the 98% approval rating? Of course not.

So when we look at President Bush's low approval ratings, we have to keep in mind the following:

First, "rightness" and "popularity" are not always the same thing. We'd like to think they are We'd like to think that as a collective we'd choose the right paths more often than the wrong ones. But it's not automatically so. The opposite is true too of course. Sometimes it really is the leader that's out of step with what's right.

The second thing we have to keep in mind is that in the real world, there are often legitimate differences of opinion among good people about the right way to proceed and there are often situations in which it is simply impossible to get a broad consensus.

If 66 % of the those polled "disapprove" of the Presiden't course of action, it doesn't mean 66% of the population are all in agreement on the way they think the President ought to go. They may in fact be even more divided amongst themselves about the right way to go. And in fact, the 33% approval rating the President has may in fact be the best possible approval rating he could possibly hope for. Low approval ratings can also indicate a country that's deeply divided over the right way to proceed.

So is a low disapproval rating completely meaningless then? No. Far from it. I think it's very important and very significant. At very least, it's an indicator that the nation is divided about the right course of action to take.. It may be impossible to gain broad consensus on important but messy issues in the real world. And a good leader takes decisive action in the face of uncertainty. Sometimes circumstances are so urgent that there isn't time for debate on the right course of action. Sometimes there isn't time to build a broad course of action. But over the years of a Presidential term, there's no excuse for not engaging in a dialog with the people. That's what we're not seeing enough of from President Bush.

So in my opinion, an 33% approval rating might not necessariloy mean the President is doing a bad job, but it definitely means we need to talk.

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Stuck In Traffic Subscription Instructions

There are several ways to subscribe to Stuck In Traffic:

  • Notification via e-mail when there is a new blog or podcast posted
  • Notification via e-mail when there is a new podcast episode posted
  • Subscription to blog and podcast episodes with an RSS aggregator
  • Subscription to podcast episodes with an RSS aggregator
  • Subscription to podcast episodes with iTunes or other podcast software

Each of these is described in the following sections.


Notification via e-mail when there is a new blog or podcast posted

If you would like to receive an e-mail anytime there is a new blog entry or podcast episode posted to Stuck In Traffic, enter your e-mail address in the following form and click subscribe:

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner




Notification via e-mail when there is a new podcast posted
If you would like to receive an e-mail whenever there is a new Stuck In Traffic podcast available, enter your e-mail address here and click subscribe.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Subscription to blog and podcast episodes with an RSS aggregator

If you use a news reader program, RSS aggregator, or similar software for reading RSS feeds, click this icon to subscribe to Stuck In Traffic:


Subscription to podcast episodes with an RSS Aggregator or other news reader software

If you would like to have all podcast episodes sent to your iTunes/iPod or similar podcast software, click this icon

Subscribe in a reader



Subscription to podcast episodes with iTunes/iPod or other podcast software:

If you would like to have episodes of the Stuck In Traffic Podcast sent to your iTunes/iPod or other podcast software, use the following address as the Podcast URL:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/StuckInTrafficPodcast
In iTunes, select "Advanced" from the menu bar, then select "Subscribe To Podcast," then copy the above URL into the URL field.

Your Feedback Is Appreciated

Any feedback for the Stuck In Traffic blog or podcast can be sent to:
feedback@stuckintraffic.com
There's nothing that makes blogging and podcasting more satisfying than to receive feedback from the readers and listeners. First of all, confirms that all the hours spent on the writing and recording and production are worth the effort because there's someone out there interested enough to spend a little bit of their precious time with you.

But more importantly, your feedback gives the author/creator guidance on what was good, what was not good about the production. So I'd very much like to hear from you. If there was something you especially liked, great! Take a minute to let me know. But I'm equally interested in hearing about the things you didn't think so great. Were there parts that were boring? poorly done? made you angry? I want to hear these things as well. If I don't hear the negative things, it's difficult to know how to improve.

So take a few minutes and send a e-mail to the address above and let me know what you think about Stuck In Traffic!

About Stuck In Traffic

Why "Stuck In Traffic"?

Because getting stuck in traffic is good for you. It's an opportunity to think, ponder, and reflect on all things, from the personal to the global, the mundane to the sublime. As Robert Pirsig wrote in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:
"Let's consider a reevaluation of the situation in which we assume that the stuckness now occurring, the zero of consciousness, isn't the worst of all possible situations, but the best possible situation you could be in. After all, it's exactly this stuckness that Zen Buddhists go to so much trouble to induce...."