Like many other people I thought President Obama’s Oval Office address fell short because it lacked specificity, substance, and even vision. It looked like the sole purpose of the speech was simply to present the president as engaged and doing something–anything–about the BP oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.
That reaction is understandable–I think that Obama has taken a lot of unfair and even silly criticism regarding this incident. I’m sure that he’s been quite engaged behind the scenes and that doesn’t always translate into the evening news. But if you are going to have an address to the nation at this stage–weeks into the disaster–you really need to demonstrate that you have a handle on the situation by discussing concrete steps you are taking to keep the oil off the coastline.
I didn’t hear that. Or anything memorable, really.
Dan Froomkin, on the problem with the White House’s approach:

How unmoored from reality are Obama and his top advisers to think that some pretty words with so little substance could accomplish so much? It makes me wonder: Was that ultimately the lesson they took from the 2008 campaign — rather than that a nation was hungering for, you know, actual change?
And how much power do they invest in the trappings of the presidency, such that they thought the Oval Office setting would make his feeble call to action so commanding that it would suddenly, benevolently redirect the public’s visceral outrage over the oil spewing from the sea floor, the perfidy of BP, and the sluggishness of the government response?
I don’t blame the speechwriter. I blame Obama, or Rahm Emanuel, or David Axelrod, or whoever it was who ultimately decided that words, rather than action, were the best way to change the perception that the government isn’t doing enough in the Gulf.

The piece asks a number of questions Obama’s speech should have answered. [Incidentally, why the Washington Post ever let Froomkin go is an case study in how that outlet has gone downhill].
Froomkin concludes with a broader political point that the speech illustrates:

The extraordinary barrage of vitriol and obstruction with which Republicans and the right-wing media have consistently responded to Obama, pretty much no matter what he says, has become a fact of life in Washington. So one of the biggest mysteries of Obama’s still-young presidency is: Why doesn’t he find that liberating?
If you’re going to get savaged by your opponents, no matter what, why talk in half-measures and generalities that make even your supporters cringe?
It’s also smart politics. One of the countless lessons of the Bush era is that the American people, for better or for worse, respond very positively to a leader who acts with conviction (unfortunately, that is the case pretty much regardless of what that conviction may be).
By contrast, Obama’s ambivalent mush is getting ripped apart by both the right and the left this morning. Being attacked from all sides is, unfortunately, some people’s notion of good political journalism, but it’s nobody’s idea of effective political leadership.

Correct. President Obama sometimes does a rhetorical dance in an effort not to say something which will upset someone. But some people make it their business being upset. In his futile attempt to placate them, he sometimes comes across as being ambiguous or indecisive. And when unemployment is high, or people need health insurance, or oil is leaking into the Gulf, that’s not what concerned citizens want to see.

On her show tonight Rachel Maddow offered a fake presidential address. I don’t agree with all of her policy recommendations, but it clearly illustrates the direct call to action our president needs to make.

This week (Monday, actually) I reported for my first-ever stint as juror in Knox County Circuit (civil) Court. The summons the court mailed me wasn’t very detailed. So if you have similarly received a summons and are wondering what to expect, here’s what I found out the first day.
The summons recommends you park at the Dwight Kessel Metropolitan Parking Garage. Why? Among other reasons, because it has an all-day rate of $5, which is equal to the parking allowance the court gives you. Other lots cost more. You don’t need to keep the garage tickets for reimbursement–the court gives everyone the parking credit regardless of if you park there or not.
When you report to the circuit court desk you are directed down the back hall to the jury room. There you’re given a short questionnaire which asks about your work, your family situation, previous jury experience, and your address. The court keeps the latter (to send jury pay) and shares the rest of the information with attorneys.
After allowing everyone in the jury pool (in my case, about 40 people) time to fill out questionnaires, the court clerk instructs everyone on the process, as follows:
The circuit court jury term lasts nine days (Monday-Friday the first week, Monday-Thursday the second week). Although the court has several trials going every day, it only schedules one a day which may require a jury. And often those settle or are otherwise resolved without going to the jury. So many days no jury is required.
Essentially jurors are on call. Every day after 5 pm you call in and are notified by recorded message whether you are report the next day or not.
The clerk said that the previous jury pool only got called in two days (out of nine). This is my third day and we’ve not yet been called for trial. It just depends on how the current docket plays out.
The clerk said that about 90% of the cases that juries in this court hear are auto accidents. The balance are medical malpractice suits and sundry other claims.
Jurors are paid $11 per day that they are called in.
In a nutshell, that’s how the system works. In the coming days I may or may not have an opportunity to learn more and fulfill my civic duty.
UPDATE: As chance would have it I did not get called in again for actual jury duty during the two-week term.
Oh well, maybe another time.

Thursday evening I showed up for a nearby bicycle shop group ride. I knew going in that the ride may be an overshoot because (1) my previous group riding experience consists of a few small social-type rides, and (2) it’s billed as an “A/B” ride with an average speed 2-5 mph faster than I normally ride.
But hey, why not?
I immediately establish my Fred credentials at the outset by (1) showing up late so that I joined the ride in progress a block from the start, and (2) eschewing standard cycling fashion and wearing a tank top.
Anyway, I merged in near the front of the approximately 20-rider pack. I really didn’t want to be at the front, but I was essentially boxed in for a couple miles so you gotta roll with the flow.
Frankly, being boxed in by other cyclists takes getting used to. I envisioned a downed cyclist in front triggering a domino-style crash.
Things went relatively well for the first four or five miles. I even took a pull. The group was in a fairly consistent two-abreast pace line and it was pretty straightforward to simply follow the wheel in front of you.
But then the organization and speed of the ride seemingly become more erratic. Eventually the four-lane road we had been riding turned into two lane. I quickly succumbed to the rookie mistake of letting too big a gap open up in front of me and once you lose the aerodynamic advantage of drafting off someone in front of you it takes a lot more effort to maintain your speed.
So I got dropped, but I continued fighting on and rejoined the pack when it stopped at a couple intersections.
I was still trying to go with the flow thereafter when I had my most gloriously Fredtastic, “I’m a clueless newbie” moment. Although I had been studiously observing the group, I had not yet picked up on the paceline rotation. And so, as I was cruising in the right line with a gap in front of me, I was notified–repeatedly by passing riders–that I needed to be in the left line if I wanted to lay back and not take pulls at the front.
Oh, the humanity.
Shortly thereafter I detonated and was dropped–this time, I thought, for good. But when I got to the next stoplight (near the half-way point) I happened upon three other dropees. I hooked up with them and availed myself of some drafting as we rounded the far side of the loop and headed back to the bike shop.
We shaved a couple miles off the normal route and eventually rendezvoused with part of the group. I hung onto the back for a while only to get dropped again on a slow climb. (I subsequently learned that they like to dial it up on that stretch. That kind of thing is good to know in advance).
I got saved by one more stoplight; the last couple miles were cool down so I was able to finish the 42-mile ride not in last place!
Is there a moral to this story? Not really. But if you’re going to ride in a fast group, (1) know the paceline rotation, and (2) stay glued to the wheel in front of you.
Next time I join that group ride I’ll really focus on (2) and see how long I can stay with the group.

I decided to change the blog design and, in theory, one of Movable Type’s packaged template sets seemed like a good way to go.
But in practice its system of tags and commands has turned out to be much more confusing than I anticipated.
So currently things are in disarray and may not work as expected. Hopefully I’ll figure it out and get everything fixed soon.
Happy Memorial Day.

From a January 19, 1896, N.Y. Times article regarding a jam-packed “Big Cycle Show” at Madison Square Garden:

Young men used to save up their money to buy a horse or a watch. Now, they save to buy a bicycle, and there are thousands who are cutting off unnecessary expenses in the way of clothing, cigars, and amusements and luxuries, so as to possess a wheel. Once they buy a wheel and become enthusiasts, they want the latest model, and so they become regular customers year after year.

If you went to a bicycle industry convention today, you’d see different equipment than that showcased 114 years ago. But the phenomenon you’d see would be largely the same: enthusiasts willing to shell out hundreds (or thousands!) of dollars for a sleeker, lighter, “faster” velocipede. I can relate.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.