TragicHipster

1) Find visual representation of an E major cord from your chord book

2) Draw that tabular configuration on a piece of paper 5 times

3) Sit yourself down and tap your foot at a moderate pace and count "1 and 2 and 3 and 4" and "1 and "2" and "3" and "4" Tap lightly on 1 and 3, tap heavily on 2 and 4. That's how rock operates. Always. Remember that. If you play it backwards, with an emphasis on 1 and 3, you're playing country.

4) Each segment of "1 and 2 and 3 and 4" is a bar. A number of those segments together are a stanza.

5) Place your fingers on the proper place on the fret board. Strum downwards four times. Hit the strings 4 counts per bar, each strum when your foot hits the ground. Do this for eight bars.

6) Strum up 4 times, instead of down, for 8 bars.

7) Alternate between strumming up, then down, for 8 bars

8) Alternate between strumming down, then up, for 8 bars

9) Reapeat all previous steps at least once

10) Bonus question #1: Try playing 8 bars of the e chord, alternating strumming styles between each bar. Remember, only 4 strums since there are 4 single counts per bar.

11) Bonus question #2: Do the same as 11, but alternate when comortable between adding a swing by alternating between stressing the 1st and 3rd strum/beat and at other times, the 2nd strum/beat and 4th. Mix it up a little bit.

Repeat all of the above and apply the same lesson to the A major chord and the D minor chord.

UML allows vendors and users to extend the language through profiles, which customize the language through the use of stereotypes, tagged values, and constraints.

* SysML is a UML profile for systems engineering applications.
* Magnus Penker and Hans-Erik Eriksson define a business process modeling profile in Business Modeling with UML (2000).
* Peter Coad, et al. show how to customize UML notation and semantics through the use of colors in Java Modeling In Color With UML (1999).
* Scott Ambler has defined a A UML Profile for Data Modeling.

Although UML is a widely recognized and used modeling standard, it is frequently criticized for the following deficiencies:

* Language bloat. UML is often criticized[Who?] as being gratuitously large and complex. It contains many diagrams and constructs that are redundant or infrequently used. This criticism is more frequently directed at UML 2.0 than UML 1.0, since newer revisions include more design-by-committee compromises.
* Problems in learning and adopting. The problems cited above make learning and adopting UML problematic, especially when management forces UML upon engineers lacking the prerequisite skills. (See the ACM article for an amusing account of such issues.)
* Only the code is in sync with the code. Another perspective holds that it is working systems that are important, not beautiful models. As Jack Reeves succinctly put it, "The code is the design."[2] Pursuing this notion leads to the need for better ways of writing software; UML has value in approaches that compile the models to generate source or executable code. This however, may still not be sufficient since UML as a language since it is not clear that UML 2.0's Action Semantics exhibit Turing completeness.
* Cumulative Impedance/Impedance mismatch. As with any notational system, UML is able to represent some systems more concisely or efficiently than others. Thus a developer is influenced toward solutions that most comfortably inhabit the intersection of the strengths between UML and the coding language. This problem is particularly pronounced if the coding implementation language does not adhere to orthodox object-oriented doctrine.
* Tries to be all things to all people. UML is a general purpose modeling language, which tries to achieve compatibility with every possible implementation language. In the context of a specific project, the most applicable features of UML must be delimited for use by the design team to accomplish the specific goal. Additionally, the means of restricting the scope of UML to a particular domain is through a formalism that is not completely formed, and is itself the subject of criticism.


"UML: The Positive Spin", a stringent criticism of UML in the form of a parody -- a mock paper by a student who has been assigned UML as a topic and is desperately trying to find something good to say about it -- was published by Bertrand Meyer in Ed Yourdon's American Programmer magazine. It is available on Eiffel Software's archive site[3].

A paper by Brian Henderson-Sellers at the MoDELS/UML conference in Genova, Italy, October 2006 details flaws in the definition of the UML 2.0 language.

UML uses many concepts from many sources. For a definitive list, consult the glossary of Unified Modeling Language terms. Notable concepts are listed here.

For structure

Actor, attribute, class, component, interface, object, package.

For behavior

Activity, event, message, method, operation, state, use case.

For relationships

Aggregation, association, composition, dependency, generalization (or inheritance).

Other concepts

* Stereotype. It qualifies the symbol it is attached to.
* Multiplicity notation which corresponds to database modeling cardinality, e.g., 1, 0..1, 1..*
* Role

[edit] Criticisms

In UML 2.0 there are 13 types of diagrams. To understand them, it can be useful to categorize them hierarchically
.
Hierarchy of UML 2.0 Diagrams, shown as a class diagram

Structure diagrams emphasize what things must be in the system being modeled:

* Class diagram
* Component diagram
* Composite structure diagram
* Deployment diagram
* Object diagram
* Package diagram

Behavior diagrams emphasize what must happen in the system being modeled:

* Activity diagram
* State Machine diagram
* Use case diagram

Interaction diagrams, a subset of behavior diagrams, emphasize the flow of control and data among the things in the system being modeled:

* Communication diagram
* Interaction overview diagram (UML 2.0)
* Sequence diagram
* UML Timing Diagram (UML 2.0)

The Protocol State Machine is a sub-variant of the State Machine. It may be used to model network communication protocols.

UML does not restrict UML element types to a certain diagram type. In general, every UML element may appear on almost all types of diagrams. This flexibility has been partially restricted in UML 2.0.

In keeping with the tradition of engineering drawings, a comment or note explaining usage, constraint, or intent is always allowed in a UML diagram.

UML is not a method by itself; however, it was designed to be compatible with the leading object-oriented software development methods of its time (for example OMT, Booch, Objectory). Since UML has evolved, some of these methods have been recast to take advantage of the new notation (for example OMT), and new methods have been created based on UML. The best known is Rational Unified Process (RUP). There are many other UML-based methods like Abstraction Method, Dynamic Systems Development Method, and others, designed to provide more specific solutions, or achieve different objectives.

After Rational Software Corporation hired James Rumbaugh from General Electric in 1994, the company became the source for the two most popular object-oriented modeling approaches of the day: Rumbaugh's OMT, which was better for object-oriented analysis (OOA), and Grady Booch's Booch method, which was better for object-oriented design (OOD). Together Rumbaugh and Booch attempted to reconcile their two approaches and started work on a Unified Method.

They were soon assisted in their efforts by Ivar Jacobson, the creator of the OOSE method. Jacobson joined Rational in 1995, after his company, Objectory, was acquired by Rational. The three methodologists were collectively referred to as the Three Amigos, since they were well known to argue frequently with each other regarding methodological preferences.

In 1996 Rational concluded that the abundance of modeling languages was slowing the adoption of object technology, so repositioning the work on a Unified Method, they tasked the Three Amigos with the development of a non-proprietary Unified Modeling Language. Representatives of competing Object Technology companies were consulted during OOPSLA '96, and were won over by Rumbaugh's a cappella rendition of his version of Joni Mitchell's "Clouds". (Indicating the victory of his OMT notation of using boxes for representing classes over Grady Booch's Booch method's notation which used cloud symbols).

Under the technical leadership of the Three Amigos, an international consortium called the UML Partners was organized in 1996 to complete the Unified Modeling Language (UML) specification, and propose it as a response to the OMG RFP. The UML Partners' UML 1.0 specification draft was proposed to the OMG in January 1997. During the same month the UML Partners formed a Semantics Task Force, chaired by Cris Kobryn and administered by Ed Eykholt, to finalize the semantics of the specification and integrate it with other standardization efforts. The result of this work, UML 1.1, was submitted to the OMG in August 1997 and adopted by the OMG in November 1997.[1]

As a modeling notation, the influence of the OMT notation dominates (e.g., using rectangles for classes and objects). Though the Booch "cloud" notation was dropped, the Booch capability to specify lower-level design detail was embraced. The use case notation from Objectory and the component notation from Booch were integrated with the rest of the notation, but the semantic integration was relatively weak in UML 1.1, and was not really fixed until the UML 2.0 major revision.

Concepts from many other OO methods were also loosely integrated with UML with the intent that UML would support all OO methods. For example CRC Cards (circa 1989 from Kent Beck and Ward Cunningham), and OORam were retained. Many others contributed too with their approaches flavoring the many models of the day including: Tony Wasserman and Peter Pircher with the "Object-Oriented Structured Design (OOSD)" notation (not a method), Ray Buhr's "Systems Design with Ada", Archie Bowen's use case and timing analysis, Paul Ward's data analysis and David Harel's "Statecharts". as the group tried to ensure broad coverage in the real-time systems domain. As a result, UML is useful in a variety of engineering problems, from single process, single user applications to concurrent, distributed systems, making UML rich but large.

The Unified Modeling Language is an international standard:

ISO/IEC 19501:2005 Information technology -- Open Distributed Processing -- Unified Modeling Language (UML) Version 1.4.2.

UML has matured significantly since UML 1.1. Several minor revisions (UML 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5) fixed shortcomings and bugs with the first version of UML, followed by the UML 2.0 major revision, which is the current OMG standard.

The first part of UML 2.0, the Superstructure which describes the new diagrams and modeling elements available, was adopted by the OMG in October 2004. Other parts of UML 2, notably the infrastructure, the Object Constraint Language (OCL) and the diagram interchange were yet to be completed and ratified as of November 2005.

The final UML 2.0 specification has been declared available and has been added to OMG's formal specification library. The other parts of the UML specification, the UML 2.0 infrastructure, the UML 2.0 Diagram Interchange, and UML 2.0 OCL specifications have been adopted.

UML version 2.1 revision is being developed, and should be available in the form of an XMI 2.1 version of the UML 2.1 version. The corresponding XMI 2.1 file will be made available from the OMG ADTF group.

Most of the commercially successful UML tools now support most of UML 2.0, leaving only the rarely used features left to implement. Of course, it will take some time for the tools that are in the hands of the developers to reach this level of compliance.

Design patterns can be classified in terms of the underlying problem they solve. Examples of problem-based pattern classifications include:

* Fundamental patterns
o Delegation pattern: an object outwardly expresses certain behaviour but in reality delegates responsibility
o Functional design: strives for each modular part of a computer program has only one responsibility and performs that with minimum side effects
o Interface pattern: method for structuring programs so that they're simpler to understand
o Proxy pattern: an object functions as an interface to another, typically more complex, object
o Façade pattern: provides a simplified interface to a larger body of code, such as a class library.
o Composite pattern: defines Composite object (e.g. a shape) designed as a composition of one-or-more similar objects (other kinds of shapes/geometries), all exhibiting similar functionality. The Composite object then exposes properties and methods for child objects manipulation as if it were a simple object.

* Creational patterns which deal with the creation of objects. Abstract Factory and Factory Method are creation patterns
o Abstract factory pattern: centralize decision of what factory to instantiate
o Factory method pattern: centralize creation of an object of a specific type choosing one of several implementations
o Builder pattern: separate the construction of a complex object from its representation so that the same construction process can create different representations
o Lazy initialization pattern: tactic of delaying the creation of an object, the calculation of a value, or some other expensive process until the first time it is needed
o Object pool: avoid expensive acquisition and release of resources by recycling objects that are no longer in use
o Prototype pattern: used when the inherent cost of creating a new object in the standard way (e.g., using the 'new' keyword) is prohibitively expensive for a given application
o Singleton pattern: restrict instantiation of a class to one object

* Structural patterns that ease the design by identifying a simple way to realize relationships between entities. Adapter is a structural pattern
o Adapter pattern: 'adapts' one interface for a class into one that a client expects
o Aggregate pattern: a version of the Composite pattern with methods for aggregation of children
o Bridge pattern: decouple an abstraction from its implementation so that the two can vary independently
o Composite pattern: a tree structure of objects where every object has the same interface
o Decorator pattern: add additional functionality to a class at runtime where subclassing would result in an exponential rise of new classes
o Extensibility pattern: aka. Framework - hide complex code behind a simple interface
o Façade pattern: create a simplified interface of an existing interface to ease usage for common tasks
o Flyweight pattern: a high quantity of objects share a common properties object to save space
o Proxy pattern: a class functioning as an interface to another thing
o Pipes and filters: a chain of processes where the output of each process is the input of the next
o Private class data pattern: restrict accessor/mutator access

* Behavioral patterns that identify common communication patterns between objects and realize these patterns. Interpreter is a behavioral pattern
o Chain of responsibility pattern: Command objects are handled or passed on to other objects by logic-containing processing objects
o Command pattern: Command objects encapsulate an action and its parameters
o Interpreter pattern: Implement a specialized computer language to rapidly solve a specific set of problems
o Iterator pattern: Iterators are used to access the elements of an aggregate object sequentially without exposing its underlying representation
o Mediator pattern: Provides a unified interface to a set of interfaces in a subsystem
o Memento pattern: Provides the ability to restore an object to its previous state (rollback)
o Null Object pattern: Designed to act as a default value of an object
o Observer pattern: aka Publish/Subscribe or Event Listener. Objects register to observe an event which may be raised by another object
o State pattern: A clean way for an object to partially change its type at runtime
o Strategy pattern: Algorithms can be selected on the fly
o Specification pattern: Recombinable Business logic in a boolean fashion
o Template method pattern: Describes the program skeleton of a program
o Visitor pattern: A way to separate an algorithm from an object
o Single-serving visitor pattern: Optimise the implementation of a visitor that is allocated, used only once, and then deleted
o Hierarchical visitor pattern: Provide a way to visit every node in a hierarchical data structure such as a tree.

* Concurrency patterns
o Active Object
o Balking pattern
o Double checked locking pattern
o Guarded suspension
o Leaders/followers pattern
o Monitor Object
o Read write lock pattern
o Scheduler pattern
o Thread pool pattern
o Thread-Specific Storage
o Reactor pattern

[edit] Documentation

Design patterns can speed up the development process by providing tested, proven development paradigms. Effective software design requires considering issues that may not become visible until later in the implementation. Reusing design patterns helps to prevent subtle issues that can cause major problems, and it also improves code readability for coders and architects who are familiar with the patterns.

Often, people only understand how to apply certain software design techniques to certain problems. These techniques are difficult to apply to a broader range of problems. Design patterns provide general solutions, documented in a format that doesn't require specifics tied to a particular problem.

Design patterns are composed of several sections (see Documentation below). Of particular interest are the Structure, Participants, and Collaboration sections. These sections describe a design motif: a prototypical micro-architecture that developers copy and adapt to their particular designs to solve the recurrent problem described by the design pattern. A micro-architecture is a set of program constituents (e.g., classes, methods...) and their relationships. Developers use the design pattern by introducing in their designs this prototypical micro-architecture, which means that micro-architectures in their designs will have structure and organization similar to the chosen design motif.

In addition, patterns allow developers to communicate using well-known, well understood names for software interactions. Common design patterns can be improved over time, making them more robust than ad-hoc designs.

Patterns originated as an architectural concept by Christopher Alexander (1977/79). In 1987, Kent Beck and Ward Cunningham began experimenting with the idea of applying patterns to programming and presented their results at the OOPSLA conference that year.[1][2] In the following years, Beck, Cunningham and others followed up on this work.

Design patterns gained popularity in computer science after the book Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software was published in 1994 (Gamma et al). That same year, the first Pattern Languages of Programs conference was held and the following year, the Portland Pattern Repository was set up for documentation of design patterns. The scope of the term remained a matter of dispute into the next decade.

Although the practical application of design patterns is a phenomenon, formalization of the concept of a design pattern languished for several years.[3]

In software engineering (or computer science), a design pattern is a general repeatable solution to a commonly occurring problem in software design. A design pattern is not a finished design that can be transformed directly into code. It is a description or template for how to solve a problem that can be used in many different situations. Object-oriented design patterns typically show relationships and interactions between classes or objects, without specifying the final application classes or objects that are involved. Algorithms are not thought of as design patterns, since they solve computational problems rather than design problems.

Not all software patterns are design patterns. Design patterns deal specifically with problems at the level of software design. Other kinds of patterns, such as architectural patterns, describe problems and solutions that have alternative scopes.

Specification language

A specification language is a formal language used in computer science. Unlike most programming languages, which are directly executable formal languages used to implement a system, specification languages are used during system analysis, requirements analysis and design.

Specification languages are generally not directly executed. They describe the system at a much higher level than a programming language. Indeed, it is considered as an error if a requirement specification is cluttered with unnecessary implementation detail, because the specification is meant to describe the what, not the how.

A common fundamental assumption of many specification approaches is that programs are modelled as algebraic or model-theoretic structures that include a collection of sets of data values together with functions over those sets. This level of abstraction is commensurate with the view that the correctness of the input/output behaviour of a program takes precedence over all its other properties. In the property-oriented approach to specification (taken e.g. by CASL), specifications of programs consist mainly of logical axioms, usually in a logical system in which equality has a prominent role, describing the properties that the functions are required to satisfy - often just by their interrelationship. This is in contrast to so-called model-oriented specifications in frameworks like VDM and Z, which consist of a simple realization of the required behaviour.

Specifications must be subject to a process of refinement (the filling-in of implementation detail) before they can actually be implemented. The result of such a refinement process is an executable algorithm, which is either formulated in a programming language, or in an executable subset of the specification language at hand. For example, Hartmann pipelines, when properly applied, may be considered a dataflow specification which is directly executable. Another example is the Actor model which has no specific application content and must be specialized to be executable.

An important use of specification languages is enabling the creation of proofs of program correctness (see theorem prover).

In the field of software engineering, the Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a standardized specification language for object modeling. UML is a general-purpose modeling language that includes a graphical notation used to create an abstract model of a system, referred to as a UML model.

UML is officially defined at the Object Management Group (OMG) by the UML metamodel, a Meta-Object Facility metamodel (MOF). Like other MOF-based specifications, the UML metamodel and UML models may be serialized in XMI. UML was designed to specify, visualize, construct, and document software-intensive systems.

UML is not restricted to modeling software. UML is also used for business process modeling, systems engineering modeling, and representing organizational structures. The Systems Modeling Language (SysML) is a Domain-Specific Modeling language for systems engineering that is defined as a UML 2.0 profile.

UML has been a catalyst for the evolution of model-driven technologies, which include Model Driven Development (MDD), Model Driven Engineering (MDE), and Model Driven Architecture (MDA). By establishing an industry consensus on a graphic notation to represent common concepts like classes, components, generalization, aggregation, and behaviors, UML has allowed software developers to concentrate more on design and architecture.

UML models may be automatically transformed to other representations (e.g. Java) by means of QVT-like transformation languages, supported by the OMG.

UML is extensible, offering the following mechanisms for customization: profiles and stereotype. The semantics of extension by profiles has been improved with the UML 2.0 major revision.

"The sky above the port was the color of television, turned to a dead channel," and so arrived the genre of cyberpunk and the first printed usage of the word "cyberspace" in any language. Of course, I am talking about William Gibson, the preeminent writer in the field of science fiction for the past 25 years, and author of the seminal 1980s classics, Neuromancer, Mona Lisa Overdrive, and Burning Chrome.

Tonight, Kieran and I went down to the main branch of the Philadelphia library where we saw the father of modern science fiction speak for about 20 minutes. It was followed by about 20 minutes of questions, and a very long line of people to get his newest book they just purchased, Spook Country, signed. There were easily 300 hundred people in a packed auditorium and he kept us quite entertained. He seems a bit more frail than what his chronological age would suggest, but he gave it his all despite a short discussion period. I wanted to ask him, but didn’t - if he thinks that "now" lasted about three years in the time of H.G. Welles, and 3 months in the time of Robert Heinlein, and 3 hours today, as he stated, is it because he wanted an excuse to break out of the typecasted entity known as the Famous Science Fiction writer and lay down some prose set today in order to make a statement (think Dylan at the Newport Folk Festival). Or, does he believe that "now" is becoming ever smaller, in fact, infinitely smaller - "is it because we are soon approaching the Progressive Apocalypse known as The Singularity on December 21, 2012?"

Instead, I decided to say, "Thanks for giving us something to talk about in college. Have fun in Philly." It was terribly awkward and he was there to collect some money and keep his publisher quiet. But oh well, I got a signature, he made a sale, and its all good for everyone involved.

He seems to handle his estimeed status as well as anyone could. He told us that if you see anything profound in his writing, its completely by accident that and we’re only seeing faces in clouds: Kieran informed me that was our new band name.

As far as the crowd at this thing, let’s just say that if we all got swept away into the heavens on a UFO, there would be a lot of IT problems with email and printers first thing in the morning in the Philadelphia metro area. I mean, Gibson does talk about complicated data constructs being one day represented as three dimensional holographic objects that could be "physically" manipulated. We’re not their yet, but I am what computer scientists call, an Object Oriented Programmer. Although, we don’t use our hands to manipulate ideas. Yet. So you get the idea. We certainly do.

William Gibson was the first to see it. We’re still looking for it.

I have a love/hate relationship with public transportation. I love not having to drive to work. And I hate having to take SEPTA.

Let me explain why.

About two Mondays ago I got to my bus stop for my bus into center city from Fairmount. The bus usually takes me south, then east at city hall, to the area where I work, around 7th and Market.

When I got to the stop there was a sign hanging on a stop sign that said:

ROUTE DISCONTINUED
JULY 9-13
Mon, Tu, Thurs, Fri
6am - 5pm
FAIRMOUNT

OK, for starters I knew immediately the route wasn't discontinued. There were just too many people in that area taking the bus and I would have heard about this beforehand. If I looked east down the street I could clearly see the street all torn up and being worked on. I figured, fair enough, they didn't have any signs that said "TEMPORARY DETOUR" so they went with one that possessed a similar meaning. Close enough.

Now, the first thing that did throw me off was the "Mon, Tu, Thurs, Fri" designation. Am I supposed to believe they are not going to discontinue, er, detour the bus on Wednesday of that week? After all, July 9-13 does include a Wednesday. Again, I gave them the benefit of the doubt and figured that it included Wednesday.

There of course the simple matter of FAIRMOUNT being written on the sign. This, through my intuitive understanding of the borg mind of SEPTA lead me to believe the stop was down on Pennsylvania Avenue, which should be made clear to anyone by writing FAIRMOUNT on the bottom of the sign. After all, if you walk down 26th Street you'll get to Pennsylvania Avenue where there is a bus stop for a different route -- where the 48 picks up people when there is a detour. You may be scratching your head wondering how FAIRMOUNT written on the sign could mean Pennsylania Avenue. Its a simple matter of the Pennsylvania Avenue stop being near where Pennsylvania Avenue merges into Fairmount Avenue.

On Wednesday I went to the stop and sure enough the bus came to the stop down on Pennsylvania Avenue, depite the fact that the sign implied it wouldn't be detoured on Wednesday. On Thursday I walked by the original bus stop towards the temporary spot on Pennsylvania Avenue and noticed that the work on the street ended a few days early. Nothing was torn up, the trucks were gone, and it was smooth sailing down the street. Ok, I was now faced with trying to understanding SEPTA logic. The sign did say the route would be discontinued, um, detoured all week, excluding Wedneday (but it did come Wednesday to the spot on Pennsylvania Avenue implied by the word FAIRMOUNT). Now that the work was done, would the bus driver observe the letter of the law, so to speak, and come by the detour location? Or will he follow the spirit of the law, so to speak, and resume picking us up at the normal location given the construction had ended?

As I found out on Thursday, he chose to follow the spirit of the law and resume pickups on Brown Street. Of course, I tried to out think them and was waiting down on Pennsylvania. The sign stating there would be a detour (ok, implied a detour) on Friday was still hanging on the stop sign at the original stop. Ok, I shouldn't have assumed the sign was right since it had already been proven wrong 1 and 1/2 times. My bad.

Monday came. The street work was still done and I learned my lesson the day earlier: despite the ongoing exposition of the sign, everything was back to normal. I waited and waited. Another guy joined me and we waited. A woman walked by and told us the bus was detoured (not yesterday!) and she headed off towards Pennsylvania Avenue. How did she possess this knowledge? I and the other guy started walking and got about 3/4 of the way down the hill when we both spotted the bus pull up at a light that just turned red. I did some quick calculations, jerked, started, then stopped. Running wasn't going to work. The speed required vs. distance to the bus vs. the time the light will stay red didn't work out to my favor. The other fellow felt otherwise and took off running. I watched him run all the way down the hill. He made it to the sidewalk opposite of the bus. The light turned green and the bus drove off with him being less than 20 yards away after he just ran 100 yards to catch it. My quick calculations were right. I wouldn't have made that bus.

Everytime I hear about SEPTA requiring money from the state I cringe. Everytime I see written that SEPTA needs a "dedicated source of funding" for their operations, I want to blurt out, "They have a dedicated source of funding! They are called customers!" Everytime I see a task as theoretically simple as publishing a detour route, I wonder if what I'm saving on gas and parking is really worth it.

SEPTA, I'm begging you, please, please, please get your head out of your ass.

Yesterday my lovely wife and I got out the video camera and shot some footage of Brewerytown, the neighborhood to the north of where we live in the Fairmount section of Philadelphia. I took the footage, mixed it, added some visual narration and a soundtrack and voila, 5 minutes about one of Philadelphia's great neightborhoods. From the time we picked up the camera and walked out the door, until the time I uploaded it to YouTube, about 7 hours passed. That included filming it, learning how to use Microsoft's Movie Maker, cutting it, and mixing it. Do yourself a favor and watch it with the soundtrack playing.

Wikipedia says:

Brewerytown is a neighborhood in the North Philadelphia district of the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. An unofficial region, Brewerytown runs approximately between the Schuylkill River's eastern bank and 23rd Street, bounded by Cecil B. Moore Avenue in the north and Girard Avenue in the south. Brewerytown got its name because of the numerous breweries that were located along the Schuylkill during the late 19th century and early 20th century. It is now primarily a residential neighborhood, with an active commercial sector along Girard Avenue. Despite struggling with poverty in recent decades, Brewerytown has seen a recent influx of young professionals, and it is considered a neighborhood on the rise.

It has been claimed by conservative punditry for some time now that the print media is inherently biased in favor of the left. After years of anecdotal evidence, there now appears to be empirical evidence to support these claims. Recently, an investigation was performed by MSNBC on the political gift-giving habits of newspaper and magazine reporters and editors. Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, evidence seems to indicate the claims by conservatives are accurate. Newspaper reporters, or at least those that donate money to political causes and parties, are overwhelming biased in favor of the left.

The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms.

If the donation patterns of a subset of a professional field is any indication of the overall picture, I find it hard to argue that journalism is not dominated by those of the liberal or progressive stripe. I also would find it hard to believe that their viewpoints would not enter into their writing.

Oddly enough, on the same day the previously mentioned report was released, Think Progress, a left-wing organization whose website states it is agianst a "radical right-wing agenda", reported on a study by the Center for American Progress and Free Press. Those organizations released a first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives.

Some of the findings include:

-- In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

-- Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

-- 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

Conservative talk radio refers to itself as conservative talk radio. It hides nothing and does not pretend to be an unbiased voice of milquetoast moderation. They are conservative and proud. Market forces have indicated over the past decade and a half that "liberal" or "progressive" talk radio simply does not work when exposed to the free market. Nothing illustrates this more than the bankruptcy of  self-described "progressive" Air America.

The elections we hold in the US are a pretty good gauge of how Americans feel about politics. In a presidential election, rarely does either major party get more than 52% of the popular vote. Americans are split down the middle in their political loyalties. Despite this, talk radio draws a disproportionately conservative listenership. I don't know what the particular demographic is or who specifically would be inclined to listen to talk radio, as opposed to someone who isn't, but whomever they are, they are pretty often conservative. On the other hand, for whatever reason, the field of journalism apparently attracts a fair number of liberals. Despite the near-equal representation of conservative and liberal viewpoints in elections and the American public, radio and print mediums attract different kinds of people -- and to an extreme on both ends.

Now everyone knows everyone's dirty secrets. Talk radio pushes a right-wing viewpoint and newspapers push a left-wing point of view.

So what?

If anything is to be learned from these findings, these two stories indicate the need for greater media literacy in America. These findings help in achieving that literacy. The more we know about the media we are consuming and the more we know about what is behind a particular piece of reporting or a viewpoint, the better able we are to digest, understand and evaluate the information we are absorbing.

The problem lies when one side or another wishes to "level the playing field" with regards to the ideological orientation of the producers and distributors of news and opinion in a particular medium. We live in a radio-scape that is a consequence of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which was legislation that guaranteed an equal presentation of viewpoints with regards to controversial and political topics. The report which detailed talk radio's domination by conservatives explicitly advocates the re-implementation of such a law. Interestingly enough, the question of implementing legislation to guarantee equal viewpoints in the newsrooms of America, whether it be print or television, has never been broached.

I don't know if it is the left's reaction to wish to use the government to change unfavorable market conditions, or if it is the general public's reaction to the radio medium, but apparently a public discussion regarding government intervention in the presentation of news and opinion on the radio is an acceptable debate to have. On the other hand, talking about having an agency such as the FCC regulate the presentation of print media would most likely be regarded as heretical and be viewed as a direct attack on the 1st Amendment and the first step towards outright dictatorship in America.

Not only does the report released by Center for American Progress and Free Press advocate the correction of "multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system", with regards to the dominance of right-wing talk radio, and a possible return to the enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine, but apparently the racial/ethnic identity and gender of the owners needs to be addressed as well. According to the following passage from the report, somehow having the government decide, or be an advocate for, one race/ethnicity over another with regards to media ownership is more in line with serving the public's interest than having listeners decide where to set their radio dial.

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

Why is there such a divergence of opinion between the public's reaction to regulation of radio and the regulation of print? Historically, the radio waves were considered public property and the for-profit businesses which used them were socially obligated to present a fair and honest balance of opinion. Fair enough. But simply increasing the supply of left-wing opinion on the radio will not automatically increase demand. Government regulation would mean nothing if people aren't turning on their radios. If a left-wing or progressive radio station, such as Air America, can not attract a viewership large enough to be profitable, then what? Should the public then begin financially subsidizing left-wing opinion? Depending upon your political orientation, the situation with regards to the diversity of opinion on the radio dial is not ideal, but at least my tax money (or yours) isn't helping pay Rush Limbaugh's (or Randi Rhodes') salary. Besides, with two different satellite radio systems, podcasts, and the widespread proliferation of web broadcasters, we are no longer beholden to one method of radio broadcast distribution. Do laws set-up as a reaction to market conditions in the 1930s really need to be revisited? Maybe in a free and open society we should simply work to better understand how and why certain opinions are presented to us and make our decisions about how and what media we consume based on that understanding.

Instead of using the force of government to enforce diversity of opinion in a particular medium, perhaps liberals and progressives need to better understand why no one is tuning in to their viewpoints as presented on the radio.

Is it the medium?

Or is it the message?

Edward Lewis Brown, usually referred to as Ed Brown, and his wife, Elaine Brown, are currently holed up in a bunker in New Hampshire awaiting the rapture. Or maybe it'll simply be the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms. Or the IRS. One way or the other, this man will be providing security on their 110 acre compound for the foreseeable future.





Like so many other small groups of people huddled in a basement awaiting the fury of the state, I am always confronted with this question: how did it all come to this?

On January 18, 2007, Edward Brown (myspace page and web site) was found guilty by a jury in a Federal District Court in Concord, New Hampshire of three criminal charges relating to his refusal to pay taxes to the US government. The same jury also found his wife, Elaine Brown, guilty of seventeen tax-related criminal charges, including tax evasion. Each was sentenced to over five years in prison. Both have rejected the authority of the courts and have refused to turn themselves in to law enforcement authorities for transport to a correctional facility.

Like other tax protestors over the past few decades, Ed Brown claims the fedeal government has no authority to collect revenue from wages via an income tax. There are a number of additional reasons they assert, most notably, the notion that no one can specify the law or statute which requires one to file a tax return. The argment he and others employ tends to over time, let us say, work out in favor of the IRS and Department of the Treasury in the end. Ideas associated with the tax protester movement have been forwarded under different names over time. These ideas have been claimed, for example, in the broader Christian Patriot and Posse Comitatus movements, which generally assert that the Constitution has been usurped by the federal government.

Ed Brown, his wife, and apparently 10 supporters, including a spiritualist with a knack for extreme right-wing interpretations of constitutional law, live in an energy-efficient, "green"-style home in New Hampshire. It is said to be a 110 acre piece of property with a five-story watch tower with perfect a 360 view of the area. Additionally, they have large quantities of food, a well, 8-inch thick cement walls, electric generator, and ... you guessed, guns and ammo. He has stated publicly that he does not intend to go to jail and is prepared to defend himself. A number of supporters are currently camped outside his home and have been encouraged to record any attempt to take Mr. Brown from his house.

Rick Stanley, a Denver-based Web radio host and a militia leader, urged listeners to join Ed Brown at his home.
Alex Jones, a Web radio host and creator of infowars.com, promised to fly to Ed Brown's home if federal agents attacked his property.
The Browns have also been interviewed on Free Talk Live and numerous other libertarian/pro-freedom media establishments.
George Noory, the host of Coast to Coast AM, interviewed the Browns on June 15th, 2007 and will be frequently contacting them for updates.

On April 14, 2007, the Concord Monitor reported that Ed and Elaine Brown "recently ordered the clerk of the court to close their case, citing themselves as 'the court' and 'judge.'" The Browns reportedly signed their filings with the court using new names: "Edward, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel," and "Elaine, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel." The Monitor also reported: "The Browns changed their names in late March after converting to a non denominational form of Christianity they learned from a man named Sonny. According to friends of the Browns, Sonny, who wears a long beard, all-white attire and sandals, flew from Hawaii to New Hampshire to visit the Browns and shared his religious and legal teachings over several days." The court rejected the filings, ruling them frivolous. According to a report by the New Hampshire Union Leader, "[t]he Browns believe the IRS and the federal income tax are part of a deliberate plot perpetrated by Freemasons to control the American people and eventually the world."

On June 7, 2007, police, SWAT teams, and armored vehicles were perceived to be gathering in a field near the Browns' home. United States Marshal Stephen Monier confirms that one Brown supporter was detained near the Browns' property. Several sources later identify the Browns' supporter as a man named Danny Riley, and state that he was detained while walking the Browns' dog, Zoe. Monier's office later releases a press statement indicating that the government agents were not raiding the Browns' home, but were in the area to serve a warrant for the seizure of Elaine Brown's dental office in Lebanon, New Hampshire. In the evening of June 7, Riley records a video describing his encounter with and detainment by federal agents earlier that day. In the video Riley claims that one camouflaged agent fired two shots over his head after he fled from the agent once happening upon him hiding in the woods near the Browns' property. Riley claims that after being tackled and tasered, he was threatened with 15 years in jail by the FBI unless he told the media that the siege was expected and planned for, and was not the outcome of an abortive attempt to serve a warrant.

Here are Riley's claims. Why this guy needed to do this YouTube bit with no shirt on, I have no idea.



On June 18, the Browns host a press conference at their home with Randy Weaver, who was involved in a deadly standoff with federal officials at Ruby Ridge. Weaver voices his support for the Browns, and the Browns reiterate their intentions to avoid arrest by the government.

Now, back to the fellow with the gun in the picture. He goes by the name Reno. (myspace page)
His real name is Cirino Gonzalez. It has been reported that he has experience in the military and extensive weapons training. He also owns a .50 calbre machine gun, which always has the potential to make things interesting. For these reasons, Cirino Gonzalez is the second most likely person to soon be seen on the news, Ed Brown being the first most likely.

In the "Interests" section of Gonzalez's myspace.com profile, he states:

Upon My Sacred Honor I Shall Fight To The Death To Remain Free No One Shall Govern Me I Shall Submit To No Authority There Is No Question In This Matter I Shall Always Refuse To Obey I Shall Face My Enemy Squarely When He Attacks, I Shall Counter-Attack When He Rests, I Shall Press The Battle And When The Time Comes That I Face My Final Departure I Shall Take My Enemy With Me For He Is A Creature Without Mercy And He Deserves None

I suspect the feds will try to starve them out and spare another Waco type of situation. In the meantime, it'll certainly be interesting to watch. I don't want to see anyone get hurt or to suffer, but having the Bush Administration go in and massacre a bunch of religious folks who don't like to pay taxes would be the perfect ending to his presidency.

Who could forget Waco?

Like Firefly several years ago, the powers that be in Hollywood have dropped the ball on another great tv series, Jericho. Unless you've been living under a rock, Jericho is a tv series that takes place in an America that has suffered debilitating nuclear terrorist attacks that leaves the nation fractured, and Jericho isolated. The story follows a few different people in their persuit of survival and their knowledge, or lack of, about post-apocolyptic America.

Luckily, a massive grassroots effort has been organized to save the show. Below is the letter I sent to CBS this morning.

I have never written a TV network about a television show, but the recent cancellation of Jericho compels me to do so. I am writing in support of Jericho, which may have been the best tv show I've seen in the past 25 years.

It is not fair to present a serial drama to the public, expect them to tune in every week and follow a multi-threaded plot only to leave us hanging. Damning Jericho in effect damns the serial format forever in my home. Why would I ever tune into another serial on your network knowing how you treat your viewers?

For starters, the show started off well. You then put the show on hiatus for several weeks then put on against American Idol. Did you want this show to fail? Due to the mistakes of your staff, why should we the viewers be punished?

I hope you reconsider your decision and possibly take one of the following actions:

1) Give us some closure, tell us the rest of the back story, and make it two hours long. I'd love to see it in a theater but a tv tele-drama would be nice.

2) Sell the rights to another network that won't drop the ball when it comes to programming decisions. Whomever decided on having such a hiatus and matching it with American Idol is in the wrong line of work.

3) Put it back on the air in a reasonable time slot.

I most respectfully and sincerely hope you reconsider your decision to cancel the show. If you can not find a financial reason to do that, please give us the satisfaction of knowing how the story ends. We deserve it.

This is a shot taken on Poplar facing north, around Bambrey/26th Street. Its an old super market that was razed several years back. Members of the local community are working to have a new super market constructed. My only question is this: where can we find that artist?