I've just a launched a new site for concert photographers. The site, 3Songs (named after the normal number of songs we're allowed to shoot at most larger shows), will feature "show debriefings", tips, news, and equipment reviews.

Check out 3Songs.net!

I was able to get press credentials for Saturday's Obama rally at Liberty memorial. I had to elbow out the national traveling photographers, which was a lot of fun. I held my own, despite not carrying a 400mm f2.8 like most of them. No thanks.

Actually, I love to.

So the government is going to bail all the banks out.

I think I forecasted almost this exact scenario in March 2005.

Who’s getting nailed here? You are, and so are the banks. Who’s the government going to bail out? I think we already know that answer. The government (which is *we*, the taxpayers) will bail the banks out, and they’ll come out fine in the end.

You? You’ll be paying this off for the rest of your life, at 50% interest. Welcome to America.

(I left out the complications of Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac from this discussion, and just lumped them in as “the banks”)

I also wrote about it again a year ago:

Luckily, government spending is at a level that helps smooth out any adverse cycles (I'm always perplexed how the right-wingers never see this fact), but we could be in the midst of something big in the real estate market. A lot of people will lose money, but the banks will rush to sell their foreclosed properties to get whatever they can to keep cash flowing. This will flood the market, increasing the cycle. Credit will tighten, forcing banks to sell more properties, ad infinitum. Some banks will fail. The government will step in to bail them out. We will all pay.

So it's obvious what we need to do: pass more bankruptcy regulations targeting poor people with medical bills and a few bad decisions. Because obviously they are the great cost to our society. But leave the "wise men in suits" alone, for they are wiser than you.

Given all of my critiques of the Bush Administration (and there is very little they have done that hasn't been disastrous), I'm not one who believes that they could have stopped 9-11. 9-11 was simply a Black Swan event, which most likely could have been carried out in many other ways. Applying security to the latest-discovered-hole will only cause those who wish to do us harm to find a new one. Anyone with reasonable thinking skills could design an attack on an unsecured place that would inflict far more terror than 9-11.

Remember, the goal of terrorism is to cause terror. The amount of lives lost is somewhat correlated but not entirely significant to that goal. Since humans process risk probability in the same region of the brain that we process emotions, it is no wonder that terrorists can exploit this bug that our brains carry. So, it should go without saying to any reasonable person that we can't guard against everything, or rather, guarding everything would be an economic burden that would bankrupt the country. We can and should invest in guarding high-risk areas like nuclear plants, but the solution is not to add security everywhere.

Many have argued that, because of the above, we need to practice a foreign policy that stresses humanity and charity, and that propping up the enemies-of-our-enemies is a bad idea. I totally agree, however, I don't agree that it's enough to stop the terrorists. Consequentialism as practiced by the NeoCons, is easily disproved in a complex world, because it is theoretically impossible to calculate the effects of blowback. One action might spawn any of 20 consequences, which would also spawn any of 20 consequences. Going 10 steps forward, there is a 1 in 10,240,000,000,000 (yes, 10 trillion) chance that you picked the right outcome.

So, our foreign policy needs to be based on a Deontological philosophy, or, we need to judge our actions based on their own merits, not some guessed future outcome. Which is all to say that we can't predict the actions of others. Who knows, our kind actions could have some very negative, random, unforeseen blowback.

So, what's left. We can't fully secure everything, we can't stop them with foreign policy. Are we doomed?

Of course not. Let's go back to the word "terrorism" as defined in Wikipedia:

Terrorism, in the modern sense, is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

So the only true way to stop terrorists is to not be terrorized. It's much more difficult than throwing money at the problem, as this requires us to look into ourselves and conquer our fears. Here's some ways that help me:

• September 11 was a horrible day. It still upsets me, but it doesn't make me scared. In fact, about 150,000 people die each day in the world. So, the tragic deaths of those 2,974 people on 9-11 only represented an increase of 2% increase for that day. Then, on 9-12, another 150,000 people in this world died. I know, I know, "tell that to someone who lost someone in the attacks." But the same applies for someone who lost someone for any reason on that day.
• Your risk of dying in a terrorist incident is still miniscule. According to this article by Michael L. Rothschild, even if terrorists blew up one shopping mall per week, and your shopping habits weren't affected, your odds of dying by the terrorists would be 1 in 1.5 million:
  

  The odds of dying in an automobile accident each year are about one in 7,000, yet we continue to drive. The odds of dying from heart disease in any given year are one in 400 and of dying from cancer one in 600, yet many of us fail to exercise or maintain a healthy diet. We have learned to live with these common threats to our health. Yet we have been afraid to return to the malls and the skies.

  What are the odds of dying on our next flight or next trip to a shopping mall? There are more than 40,000 malls in this country, and each is open about 75 hours per week. If a person shopped for two hours each week and terrorists were able to destroy one mall per week, the odds of being at the wrong place at the wrong time would be approximately 1.5 million to 1. If terrorists destroyed one mall each month, the odds would climb to one in 6 million. This assumes the total destruction of the entire mall; if that unlikely event didn't occur, the odds would become even more favorable.

  In another hypothetical but horrible scenario, let us assume that each week one commercial aircraft were hijacked and crashed. What are the odds that a person who goes on one trip per month would be in that plane? There are currently about 18,000 commercial flights a day, and if that person's trip has four flights associated with it, the odds against that person's being on a crashed plane are about 135,000 to 1. If there were only one hijacked plane per month, the odds would be about 540,000 to 1.

We need to look to leaders to educate us on our own natural biases towards thinking that the risks of sensational acts are greater than they actually are. We need to scorn those who sell us fear and gloom, for we've already shown that predicitons in any complex environment are worthless. We need to suck it up and not be afraid. We need to drop the Terrorism Threat Level, which should be looked at only as a measure of our fear, and a metric of effectiveness by those who wish to control us with it.

Then we should ask ourselves, who gains when we are afraid, and why would they want us to be afraid? We know why Al-Qaeda benefits, but we should ask anyone else with a stake in our terror what they have to gain. Control? Power? Money? Votes? Viewers? Ad Revenues? And then we should ask ourselves, if the goal of terrorism is to create irrational fear in the civilian population, why do we regard those who are selling us that fear from inside our government and media any differently?

I refuse to be terrorized.

I will be playing George Kittredge in this Radio-Play-Style production of the Philadelphia Story at OCTA on August 15 & 16th at 8:00PM, and Sunday August 17th at 2:00PM. Tickets are $10 and you should call ahead for reservations at 913-782-2990.

We will be performing this show as a radio play complete with advertisements, songs, and live sound effects. If you haven't seen this show or movie, it is a great show.

This year, Tracie, Tori, Emma and I are all in Leawood Stage Company's production of Annie Get Your Gun. The show runs 7 nights (July 17-20 and July 24-26). The show is at 8:00 pm in Ironwoods Park, which is located near 147th & Mission Rd. Admission is free.

We've been working at this 5 days a week since June 1, and are very excited for everyone to come see the show. Bring your lawn chairs or a blanket to sit on.

Anyone with an interest in dance should go see City in Motion at the Gem this Saturday night.

Tickets range from $10 - $18 and can be purchased at the door or at the evil, evil Ticketmaster.

For those that complain that this town has nothing to do, perhaps you should actually try something new?

So, the citizens of Kansas City passed the no smoking ordinance yesterday. Although it is a flawed bill (you can still smoke on casino floors), it is a great step forward for the city.

I smoked years ago, so I have some perspective on this. And take my perspective for what it's worth, which is absolutely nothing.

So, let me answer these questions as I used to answer them when I did smoke. My position has not changed.

Why is this good for smokers
Admit it. No one (even smokers!) likes going out for the night and coming home smelling like you've bathed in an ashtray. Your clothes stink, you stink, your hair stinks.

Also, you smoke too much. I know, who am I to say, but it's true. I smoked about half a pack per day, but I could easily go through a pack in a couple hours drinking. Which compounded the hangovers. Ten times worse.

But I like to smoke when I drink
So did I! So, here was my little secret: I either went to drink at places with patios where I could smoke, or I went outside to light up.

Outside???? That might work for those librul Californians with great weather, but it gets COLD here in Kansas City. And HOT!
It works fine in New York as well, and it gets just as cold and just as hot. And talk about smokers! They're everywhere. Walk by any bar on a Friday night and see the massive throng out front smoking. They're not miserable.

I used to love going out in NYC as a smoker. I smoked half as much and felt twice as good. And the smokers there didn't seem to mind.

But why should you loser nonsmokers get to enforce your will on us?
Because it's a public safety issue. You have to wear a seatbelt in your car. Oh yeah, and we're also the majority. Suck on it.

Trust me, there are plenty of nonsmokers that will go out more now that they don't have to factor in a shower and a load of laundry :)

I stopped going to a place I loved to see shows because the smoke was so bad. I often choose not to go out because the smoke makes me feel like absolute shit. It did then also, but I was desensitized to it. Trust me smokers, most of you will appreciate this.

But what about the poor bars? Studies show that x% of bars close when smoking bans are enforced.
Not my problem. Adapt or die. Business owners seeking safety should sell their businesses and get a government job.

But shouldn't it be up to the business owners to decide?
No. The people spoke. This is a democracy. That's how it works!

I used to think the free market was capable of deciding this, and that some bar owners would see an opportunity and go smoke-free. But it never happened. So the people did something.

But it was backed by deep pocketed corporations who wanted an edge!
So, they got the people to follow. What's new. And just because someone has a motive, doesn't mean that the outcome is necessarily bad.

And, I'm sick of your whining. "But this...", "But that..." Get over it and move on with your life. In the grand scheme of things, this is trivial.

From his blog:

Call me crazy, but when given the choice of developing new applications for a deterministic platform connected to a specialty application box connected to a high definition TV with a remote control or a best efforts internet platform connected to who knows how fast a connection to a PC running who knows what operating system connected to a monitor and a keyboard, I will take the first option.

Duh?

But it's not about what is easier. Sure, it's easier for newspapers to keep the same business model as the last 100 years, but that's not working so well.

It's about leveraging the strengths of a given platform, not comparing it apples-to-apples against something completely different. It's about getting viral views, and having content worth spreading. Sure, that's much harder than controlling a network and forcing shows and ads into people's eyeballs, but the alternative is much worse. I can assure you there are people willing to do the hard work.