8 Hours in Madrid

The New York Times travel section has their famous 36 hours in ..., where they give readers a possible itinerary of culture, eating, drinking, partying, etc. in a given city. Since I can't compete with the NY Times, I went with 8 hours, the time someone might have in Madrid between flights.

12 Noon. Find the left luggage (consigna) at your terminal. If you are coming from an international destination, it is most likely terminal 4, but there are similar places in terminal 1 and maybe 2. Deposit all your stuff in the large cabinets (5 Euros for 24 hours). Take your computer with you, though.

12:30 PM. Find your way to the rail and bus terminal. Take either the Metro bus or train (renfe) to Madrid, Atocha Station.

13:45 PM. Step outside, go the the McDonald's across the station, order a cafe bombón (espresso shot served over sweetened condensed milk) and a macaron, or whatever other drink and pastry that tempts you, and while you are sipping use the free wireless service to call your significant others, check the news or mail.

1:30 PM Proceed to cross the street parallel the train station and go to El Brillante (next to Starbucks). Sit at the bar, order their famous Bocadillo de Calamares, and enjoy it with a Spanish beer available on tap.

2:00 PM Return in the direction of McDonald's, and continue towards El Prado museum. You actually have to cross the boulevard towards the green (grass and trees) side. Do it sooner rather than later. Enjoy the magnificent collection. As the ushers what to watch first (1st floor a collection of large scale paintings), as there is enough famous art to last you a week of walking. At 6 PM entrance is free, and you'll notice the crowd pouring in. This may be a time to sit down and enjoy some people watching.

7:00 Visit the Prado cafe for dinner or bocas.

8:00 Catch the train/Metro bus back. Your next destination awaits.

Note: if the classics are not your flavor, visit the Real Madrid football museum, in their stadium. Just don't ask me for direction...

Todd Akin and the Will of God

Todd Akin's comment that pregnancies following rape (and for that matter incest, though Todd did not bring that one up) are the will of god (read more here) reminds me of a story by Nobel Prize winner, S. Agnon I am quoting from memory, a pretty old memory at that, so forgive any inaccuracies.

A cart reached a fork in the road. The driver and passenger were not sure which one to take (after all, it was in Poland in the winter, and there were no signs). The driver thought a moment and said: if I head left, this would be the will of god, and he will guide us safely to our destination. On the other hand, if I bear right, this too would be the will of god, who will guide us safely to our destination.

From then on, the decision was left to the horses.

In other words, no matter what happens, if you believe in god, it is his will.

So if the rapist went on to kill the poor woman, so she will not get pregnant, this would also be the will of god. And presumably, Todd would be OK with that, as he would be if the woman took a knife, went Lorena Bobbitt on the guy, and he bled to death.

Would Mr. Akin be fine with someone taking up an automatic rifle and going on a killing spree? After all, those deaths, too, are the will of god.

I think Mr. Akin should drop the will of god from the equation. And while at it, he should re-read Atlas Shrugged and in particular John Galt's speech. He probably won't learn anything, but it would be a worthy punishment.

While we are dispensing advice to creepy politicians, Willard Mitt Romney, who named his son Taggart, should also read Atlas Shrugged, and wonder how Ayn Rand's ideas fit his religion activities.

Epilogue/Correction

I may have conflated Akin and Mourdock. With all the tea party, coffee party, and other crank candidates, it is hard to keep up. After a while, the differences between Akin and Mourdock, Mourdock and Murdoch, Murdoch and Mordor, Mordor and Murder all become one big blur, into a dull gray cloud of miasma.

So freaking easy - amazing! Using a serial on a USB laptop

For once, a technical blog... Not exactly a writing exercise, just an experience I had to share.

Background

I like to hang out with a GPS device when I travel. It is a nice way to capture the coordinates of places I wish to visit again, or to share through my web site.

I own two low-end hand held GPS devices made by Garmin - the eTrex, which uses a serial connector, and the eTrex HC, which is a more modern model, with a USB connector, a color screen and some other (very small and faint) bells and whistles. eTrex, with its monochrome screen is still sold, but the more advanced HC has been supplanted.

Both handhelds use high sensitivity chip, which makes them well suited for use in the rain, in forests, or around high rise buildings. The main difference (other than the connector) is that the serial eTrex, with its limited waypoint naming (six uppercase names, no comments) is actually more user friendly. Its limited capacity forces the user to download the data, erase memory and start anew. In contrast, the HC tempts you to keep the data inside, since you are much more invested in it (you can use upper and lower case names, you can add long comments, you can display multiple tracks in different colors and so on). The end result of the convenience is that clutter (old points, tracks and routes) tend to stick around, and soon enough it is tough to process the data, offload it to the computer, etc. So in a way, this is a curse in disguise - like the DVR loaded with shows so old you can't remember what they are.

But I digress.

The Point

So, as you can imagine, I prefer to use the serial GPS for my data collection. This is fine and good while I am home, but on the road, finding a laptop with a serial connection is not that easy. So I have been taking the USB GPS for longer trips. I use a software program called GPSMan to download and process the data, and Linux as my OS.

But recently I decided to try something new. I took the serial eTrex, with its serial cable, and added the Keyspan Serial to USB connector (I also took the USB GPS just in case). I figured that it would be a nice challenge to try and use the serial GPS with a USB laptop, something to do when it is too rainy to go out (which is quite common in Central America and the tropics).

I collected my data, and looked for the cables. I connected the Keyspan to my USB port, and as a simple user (not even root) typed the following at the prompt:


modprobe keyspan (this loads the module needed to run the Keyspan)

lsmod |grep span (this command lists the modules, just to make sure it was loades), with the following response:

keyspan                37020  0
usbserial              37173  1 keyspan

I connected the GPS to the serial cable and then to the Keyspan, typed the command in a terminal:

gpsman& (this runs GPSMan in the background and lets me continue using the terminal)

I turned the GPS on, and used GPSMan to connect to it. I did not load any garmin USB drivers, or anything - it was set to connect to a USB device (/dev/ttyUSB0) and use the Garmin protocol (NOT the Garmin USB protocol). 

Without lifting a finger, the device was recognized, and in 30 seconds (probably a lot less), the data was no my computer, ready for processing. 

The only difference from using a desktop with a serial port was that I was not able to turn the GPS off from the computer, something that GPSMan allow me to do when I am directly connected. But that's a small price to pay for using a serial device with a USB-only laptop...

Recap

Want to use a Serial GPS with a USB laptop running (Ubuntu) Linux? Here are the steps:

1. Get the Keyspan serial to USB converter.

2. Connect Keyspan to computer and type modprobe keyspan.

3. Connect GPS to serial port on Keyspan.

4. Type gpamsn &

5. Use GPSMan to d/l or upload data (I only tried download at this point, but it should work both ways)

Petitioning Darrell Issa

Dear Representative Issa,

There were several news reports such as this headline "Darrell Issa May Hold Congressional Hearings On Last Week's Jobs Report" from Business Insider, this one from Fox, and this from the Huffington Post. But to my chagrin, news quickly followed that you are NOT going to start the investigation, both denials from left leaning publications, Mother Jones and Politico.

I respectfully submit my request to you to open a congressional investigation of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and their recent Jobs Report, and would like to take the opportunity and make the case for such investigation.

First, let me start by saying that I have followed your career with delight, and while there are rumors that you are a little bit crooked, one has to admit that this is a requirement for success in Congress, and at least you did your monkey business BEFORE you entered the chamber, unlike most of your peers whose corruption starts when they are elected. One also has to admire the fact that of all the politicians persecuting Clinton for oral sex in office, you are the last one standing. But I digress.

I honestly believe that investigating the BLS is a good idea, is the right thing for the American people, and would be supported by both Conservatives, Independents and Progressives. Here is why:

1. There is too much drama in politics at the moment. Your investigation is likely to calm things down. A bunch of statisticians testifying about their methodology, and arguing why their variance values are so high would clearly accomplish the task.

2. Educational value - unlike investigating Clinton for getting a Lewinsky, whose report was unsuitable for children under 18, and challenged parents to explain sexual acts to their children, the future report of your committee would be highly educational, and would increase the math literacy of the average American. For example, terms such as "labor participation rate", "Employment-population ratio", "marginally attached" and "discouraged workers" can be an excellent start to discussion of the value of college education.

3. Contribution to the economy - your hearings and further investigations would grow the local and national economy. All the lawyers, legal secretaries, filers, detectives, public relation firms and many others required to conduct such hearing and in-depth investigation would contribute millions of dollars into our flagging economy. Finally, something useful would come out of this useless Congress.

4. Entertainment - what can be more insightful to the public than to watch Allen West and Jack Welch, live on stage? You could not find better entertainment in a circus or a zoo!

So please reconsider and have the hearing. For the children!

Carpe Diem - Seize the Fish

By now, we have all heard how Mr. Romney won the first presidential debate in Denver. If you are one of the lucky seven that have read my previous post (you know who you are, even if I don't), you also got my immediate impressions of the debate. Here is a more measured, contemplation of issues stemming from the events.

The debate itself was a strange event. One side (Obama) looked like they brought a knife to a gunfight. Their performance can best be described by the title (and lyrics) of a Mariah Carey song, Vanishing. The other side (Romney) seized the day by a performance worthy of a magician, or a shape shifter. All in all, I could not decide whether this debate was partly taken from a Monty Python skit, a Kafka novel, or a fantasy novel I have yet to read. So it was at least entertaining.

Which brings me to the point I wanted to ruminate about. Personally, I have nothing about people changing their views. Someone (John Lennon?) once said that if you hold the same opinions at 50 that you did at 20, you have wasted 30 years of your life. People acquire experience, change perspective, and move around the socio-political map. That's understandable.

When it comes to a political figure it can be confusing. I am not against flip-flopping and changing positions, but I'd like to know what I am buying with my vote (or at least what a rich guy is selecting for me with his money and purchased votes). And in the case of Romney, I have really no fucking idea which one of his cast of characters would show up. Pinning down Romney is like trying to seize a live fish (carpe carp, get the pun?) - slippery, squirmy, scaly and fishy.

Suppose Romney ended up POTUS. Would he be the ruthless corporate raider, dismembering businesses, shipping jobs abroad and raiding employee pensions, or the compassionate conservative that gave Massachusetts residents healthcare and just loves ordinary Americans, even teachers? Would he be Bush on Steroids, looking for WMD in Iran and putting his last penny into starting wars with China, Iran, Syria, etc. or will he cut the military and outsource world policing to the Indians and Chinese, who can still afford it?

Here are some things I am pretty sure we'll see from President Romney.

1. Health care - minor changes, if any. Why? First, because the insurance giants have been absent from the elections, and their stock has been free of gyrations, suggesting they are not concerned about any changes to the health laws, and neither are investors. Second, because this will reignite the healthcare debate and be a waste of energy. And third, because POTUS Romney knows that the only better alternative is government take over, aka single payer. After all, Obamacare plan is not that far Romneycare.

2. Financial regulations - status quo will prevail. Changes to any law are a risk and, especially when done by a Wall Street insider like Romney, open up accusations of corruption, conflict of interest, and blame for (future) economic failures. Romney is also well aware that without regulations, reckless and corrupt practices may bring down the banking system again, and in the present environment, he won't be able to save it.

3. Iran - with all the tough words, a war with Iran will be expensive, blow up the global oil supply system and result in world wide recession and political instability. Romney will be slow and careful. He may owe his election to right wing nuts like Sheldon Adelson, but he knows that his political future depends on the rest of the country as well.

4. Taxes - Romney will do what serves his personal interests, give breaks to the super-rich and try to push the burden to the average and poor citizens by raising taxes, cutting services and moving programs to the states. There will be such revulsion that public pressure will eventually moderate his positions, but it will be too little too late.

5. Education - little change. Push to let churches and businesses get public funding will be slowed down in the courts, and prove counter productive, wasteful and of lower quality. Some people near the trough will get money from Uncle Sam for their clergy and share holders, but they will be the minority.

Let's review in 2 years if Romney makes it to the highest office.

Watching the debate

This would be a short post, only describing briefly my impressions of the Presidential debate that took place in Denver an hour or two ago.

1. Obama looked tired. The presidency seemed to weigh on him.

2. Obama's grin looked genuine, Romney's was like the Cheshire Cat's.

3. Romney abused and dominated the moderator, insisting on getting more time to speak, respond out of turn, etc. Some may consider it endearing or masculine. To me Romney appeared like a testosterone laden bully, one of those bosses who make you stay late Friday night to review a two sentence memo, only to show you they can.

4. There were so many numbers, lies, obfuscations and so on that I could not make ends of tails of facts on the matter.

5. Interesting Romney themes include pushing Medicare and Medicaid to the states, giving Federal funds to private and religious schools, and creating 12 zillion jobs (by REALLY concentrating on job creation, which will bring the magic of the free market to rain them from the sky, no doubt).

May God and/or Nature have mercy on us all. We sure need it.

A bad idea

There is a new Mitt Romney article on Washington Post, which shares tidbits about his relationship with money, and makes for an interesting, if frustrating, read. Interesting because it opens a window into the live of the super-rich (those who can write off $77,000 a year of raising show horses as a business expense). Frustrating, because it looks like Romney's ambiguous, contradictory relation with money is about as solid as his policy positions.

But the part I want to focus on is found on the article's third page, between the paragraph informing us that Romney consolidates household garbage into larger bags “because the waste management company in his area charges by the bag.” and the paragraph describing his house renovations ("He’s spent millions updating and expanding the compound on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire into a family playground of horses and barns, powerboats and water toys."). 

According to the article: (Romney's) five sons are beneficiaries of a family trust valued at more than $100 million — as long as they keep working. “He’s said if you guys ever decide to stop working,” said Josh Romney, “you can guarantee you’ll never see another penny from the family.”

This epitomizes the Republican attitude, or at least the attitude of the people the GOP seems to worship (rich white males of inherited wealth, who pretend to be 'one of the guys' in order to execute the political priorities of the super wealthy - to make sure the rich get richer, the the poor stay under control), and is a combination of stupid and funny.

First, it perpetuates the banking paradigm - give money to those who do not need it, but keep it away from those who do. Loan to people with money (call it good credit, collateral, or whatever you want), and abuse the needy with higher rates for car loans, mortgages, and other financial help. The new Romney generation can take out money from their $100 million trust, as long as they are duly employed. But Mormon forbid, if they stop working, they are on their ass. Or at least have to beg for money.

Second, I can't remember how many books, plays and movies I have read or seen where the hero repeatedly failed in college because he lived off a trust conditioned on his being a university (or medical school) student, or pretending to work for the stipend.

Thus, I am curious to know the answers to these important questions.

• How does one define work? Would Papa Romney deny his kids the opportunity to evade taxes by investing in tropical island tax shelter? As 'normal' employee, whose taxes are handled by employers, they won't be able to do that! Or would working for themselves do?
• Does any job count? Can a Romney be a janitor, burger flipper, or street sweeper, or does he have to be in a position to fire people, like daddy?
• If Romney Jr. is allowed to be self employed, does the business have to turn a profit? Is it okay to loiter around and accrue a loss, while benefiting from the family fortune? Who is to tell which loss is real, and which is fraudulent?
• If a Romney volunteers, does it count as work? Must Romney Jr. volunteer for the Mormons, or is it okay to work for anyone?
• Can a Romney do pro-bono, or charitable work, to enjoy the family trust-fund benefits, or are the Romneys required to charge for work?
• What if an off-spring falls on hard times, perhaps a medical emergency or an accident? Would he still be able to get the benefits, or would he be tossed to the street, with his family, like the victims of Bain Capital?
• Who is the final arbiter of performance? Mitt? Ann? The church elders?

Lots of things to ponder. Though, considering the family shroud of secrecy, I doubt we'll learn the details of this trust fund either. 

Oh well, probably for the best...