In order to save America, we must prevent people who disagree with Matt Walsh from voting!

Matt Walsh is sure that he’s right! He doesn’t want Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump to become president. That would be a disaster, as all people who agree with Matt Walsh will instantly acknowledge. So in order to prevent such a catastrophe from happening, we must severely restrict voting rights so as to skew the electorate towards Matt Walsh’s personal opinion of who should be elected. You know, good upstanding Americans who tune their TVs to Fox News 24 hours a day! Not those nasty, lazy ignoramuses who only watch MTV, or even worse, MSNBC!

Matt proposes a 3-part plan, cleverly designed to sort out the Fox-News-Watchers from the chaff:

1. Require Every Voter To Take And Pass A Fifth Grade Civics Exam

This is a no-brainer. It’s easy to make a test that only people who agree with you will pass. Everyone who doesn’t pass it is just stupid and deserves, like Matt says, to be “exiled to an island in the Pacific.” Maybe that one that Obama pretends to have been born on. Naturally the questions will be written by a fair-and-balanced expert who regularly appears on Fox News, to make sure the Right Sort of voters sail through the test!

2. Abolish Early Voting

I have to admit, this one had me confused for a while. How could abolishing early voting help ensure that only the “best” voters make it to the polls? Wouldn’t we want everyone who passes Matt’s test to be able to vote? Of course not! Plenty of liberals and other miscreants could fake their way through an easy 10-question test. But people of True Character know that voting shouldn’t be easy. If it was easy, then some lazy (aka LIBERAL) people might be inclined to vote instead of going to their inflexible jobs or staying home and “liking” their friends’ Facebook posts!

Nosiree, voting should only occur on the designated Tuesday between the hours of 9 am and 5 pm, as the Founding Fathers intended. That way, people who had the wisdom and foresight to get jobs with flexible work schedules (and who, not coincidentally, tend to agree with Matt’s politics) are the only ones who will be able to vote! Brilliant! Let’s make sure the dimwits who work in our factories, clean our office buildings, drive our trucks, and do other “McJobs” with low pay and no time off are conveniently unavailable the only time it’s legally possible for them to vote!

3. Only Grant Voting Privileges to Tax Payers

This is the best one of all! No tax-paying, no voting! And let me be clear here, Matt only wants to grant voting privileges to people who pay the Right sort of taxes, like property tax and income tax. I mean, nearly everyone pays sales tax and payroll tax, so we couldn’t possibly grant voting rights to those folks. Next thing you know they’ll be asking for decent wages and free college for everyone! No, the people Matt wants to exclude are folks like a “19-year-old college sophomore who lives in a dorm and spends his evenings getting drunk with the booze money his parents gave him.” Obviously this college student could pass the civics test and he has plenty of time to vote on Election Day, so we’ve got to come up with another way to exclude him. College students are LIBERAL! And they are also eligible to register for the draft. We might need them to fight in some endless war in the Middle East one of these days. We can’t have them voting and ruining everything!

Yesiree, Matt Walsh has just come up with about the best possible argument for limiting the vote to people who agree with him. That ought to keep the Right people running the country until they need to come up with other ways to … er … improve the electorate. America didn’t become the Greatest Democracy in the World by letting no-goodnicks decide elections for them. If Matt has his way, America will truly be Great again. Only it won’t quite be a democracy any more, but that’s okay. If we can’t be the world’s greatest democracy, at least we’ll be a half-decent oligarchy. Surely that’s better than having another President Clinton, isn’t it?

Posted in Satire | Comments Off

What people don’t seem to “get” about self-driving cars

I just spent about 15 minutes reading through some of the comments on this Gizmodo post about why self-driving cars shouldn’t have steering wheels. The basic principle is that passengers in self-driving cars aren’t paying attention and don’t expect to be driving, so giving them a steering wheel is probably more dangerous than not giving them one. After all, if you’re always going to be ready to take over the controls of a car yourself, then you might as well just get a regular old human-driven car, right?

The objections in the comments nearly all seem to be on the order of “what if the car fails or encounters unforeseen circumstances?” The answer is, of course, that the car will be programmed to deal with adverse conditions in the safest possible manner. Presumably sensors will determine if the car loses traction on black ice, encounters poor visibility, etc., and slow down or stop the vehicle. If the brakes or steering systems fail then it’s possible that the car could crash. However, this would be true in human-driven vehicles as well, and not all humans know the safest way to handle these situations.

One comment that I saw repeatedly (in several different versions) is that if the car broke down the user would be “stuck.” But this once again assumes that somehow computer-driven cars would break down more frequently than human-driven cars. I’m not sure that’s true.

More importantly, in a world of self-driving cars, breaking down would actually be much less of a problem than in the current world. It would be easy to get another self-driving car to pick you up if you got stuck somewhere. Indeed, Google’s plan for the cars is not that individuals would own them, but that they’d subscribe to a car service. If one car broke down, it could immediately summon a replacement in a matter of minutes. The passenger would change cars, and needn’t concern herself with repairs for the Google car; that’s not her problem, it’s Google’s!

Self-driving cars under this model solve a lot of current problems. There wouldn’t be nearly the same need for public parking; once you’re dropped off at a location the car moves along to the next passenger. Homes could be smaller because there would be no need for garages. Studies have shown that much urban traffic congestion is caused by people searching for parking spaces; this would be unnecessary in a world filled with autonomous vehicles.

It’s not to say that autonomous cars wouldn’t have problems. I’m certain they would; there are issues with hacking, privacy, and how the cars would handle peak travel periods. Would prices go up? Would it take an unacceptably long time to get a car during rush hour? And as I’ve mentioned before, there’s also the human cost: not so much in terms of the physical safety of the vehicles, but in terms of all those taxi, truck, and bus drivers who’d be put out of work.

It’s going to be a much tougher challenge figuring out how to live in a world where robots do most of the work than it will be figuring out how to build the robots themselves.

Posted in Technology | Comments Off

A not-so-small quibble about the way taxes are reported

There’s a nice post over on Vox explaining the impact of Bernie Sander’s proposals on tax rates. It’s good information, but I think it’s conveyed in a manner that is more than a little misleading. This chart has most of the goodies:


It’s pretty clear that Sanders is proposing some rather large increases. But the chart does a few things that I think are rather odd. First of all, it’s giving you marginal rates: the rates on each additional dollar of income you earn, not all those dollars below that amount. For example, at an adjusted gross income of $18,550, every dollar you earn above that amount will indeed be taxed at an income tax rate of 15 percent. But every dollar below that was taxed at just 10 percent. If you earn exactly $18,550, none of your income is taxed at 15 percent. Misleading, no?

Second, these figures are for adjusted gross income. An AGI of 0 corresponds to an actual income of $12,600 (if you’re married filing jointly). The actual income tax rate for a couple earning up to $12,600 is zero. Pretty tough to see that on this chart, isn’t it?

Finally, the chart includes “payroll taxes” that you don’t pay at all; they are payed by your employer. For every dollar of payroll tax the government collects from you, in most cases it also collects a dollar from your employer. That’s rather misleading in my view since most people never even knew that money was being paid. It’s part of the expenses a company has for each employee (along with office space, equipment, heating, and so on…).

So here’s a revised chart giving the same information but corrected to account for the three problems I just mentioned:


Here I’ve corrected the income figures to show gross salary, and totaled up the actual amount of taxes payed by the individual currently and under Sander’s plan. Quite a different story, isn’t it? A couple making $87,900 pays just 19.4% now, and that goes up to just 22% under Sanders. The other chart makes it look they are paying more than twice that!

Arguably, however, the employer contributions should be included as well. After all, an employer might behave differently, cutting salaries or firing employees, if their costs go up. Here’s a chart that shows the employer contributions as well:


Now you can see that the employer of a family earning $87,900 incurs about 6% more costs under Sanders compared to the current system. I’d argue this chart is still a little confusing, since the individual doesn’t see how much more he or she would pay, but the combination of the two charts does a fairly decent job showing the difference in Sanders’ proposals and the current tax system.

Sanders could also make the case that, for nearly all families whose health care is covered by their employer, the employer’s cost hardly goes up at all, because all of these increases go towards his “medicare for all” plan, meaning the employer no longer has to pay for health coverage. Here’s how much the employer portion increases for each salary point:


Even for a family making $262,600, the employer cost only rises $15,131 under Sanders; most folks making that much money are likely to have a health plan costing the employer significantly more. The serious increases don’t start until families are making high 6-figure salaries.

It’s pretty rare to see tax proposals covered the way I’m suggesting they should be here. I wonder if folks might be a little more amenable to change if they saw the proposed taxes presented a bit more clearly.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Cocktails in India

When you spend three and a half months in a place like India, as I just did, you begin to notice some trends. It’s not like you’ve really become a “native,” but you do start to get a sense of how things work.

Consider alcohol. The mainstream opinion of alcohol in India is “it’s bad.” Most adults do not drink. It’s forbidden in Sikhism and Jainism, and strongly discouraged in Islam. It’s not especially encouraged in Hinduism either.

That said, people do drink. Ads for Kingfisher beer are ubiquitous, as are ads for Royal Challenge, which is the best-selling premium whisky in India. In Tamil Nadu, alcohol was only sold in restaurants/bars and state-run “TASMAC” stores. Generally the TASMAC stores cater to the average Indian, which means from a Western perspective they sell really cheap, really bad stuff. Single-malt Scotch is not to be found in most TASMAC stores. It seems to me that most folks hanging around TASMAC stores are drinking to get drunk, not to enjoy it on the way down.

Alcohol is very heavily taxed in most parts of India. At restaurants in Chennai we were charged 59% liquor tax on top of the already-high prices for alcohol. At one place, we paid about 4,000 rupees ($60) for a bottle of wine that would have been around $20 in the US, only to find out about the 59% tax when we received our bill! We also found that most of the wine we were served in India ranged from “musty” to “corked.”

This led us to order more cocktails, which are their own adventure in India! Every bar has a cocktail list, and most decent bars were well-stocked with all the usual liquors and mixers. However, even if it was obvious the bar stocked all the ingredients you might request, in most cases, you could not ask for any kind of substitutions. Want a martini? It comes with gin. Even though you can see four bottles of vodka right there behind the bar, you cannot under any circumstances get a martini made with vodka — unless it’s on the menu, which it was in one place in Delhi where we enjoyed several “vodkatinis.”

Margaritas at "Lord of the Drinks" bar in Delhi

Margaritas at “Lord of the Drinks” bar in Delhi

Want a drink on the rocks? You can’t have it, unless that’s the recipe for the particular drink you’re ordering. Margaritas were always served blended, martinis always straight up, mojitos always on the rocks.

Every bar serves liquor straight up, and sometimes they will put that on the rocks if you ask. You can also order some basic drinks like a gin and tonic in this way, but you’ll pay separately for the gin and the tonic. We went lots of places where elaborate drinks on the cocktail list were priced at a flat 500 rupees ($7.50) but a G&T would cost 500 for the gin plus 200 for the tonic.

Hindi "Schweppes" tonic

Hindi “Schweppes” tonic

The cocktail list was always a surprise. There were some drinks you could find almost anywhere, but occasionally even something as basic as a martini would be left off the menu. Most commonly seen were mojitos, margaritas, martinis, and Long Island iced teas, with frequent guest-appearances by whisky sours. Preparations varied widely from bar to bar, so a “safe” drink in one place couldn’t be counted on in another.

Greta with a "New Old Fashioned"

Greta with a “New Old Fashioned”

Waiters were generally shocked at how much ice I wanted in my drinks. I prefer to still have some ice in the glass when I finish the drink, but that counts as “way too much” by pretty much everyone in India.

While cocktails were always a surprise and often fun in India, we got tired of them quickly. Typically, once we had a cocktail or two we switched to Kingfisher. And we nearly always stayed away from the wine. The best bang for your buck is probably to buy a bottle of the best whisky you can find at a liquor store and drink in your hotel room…but it’s more fun to see what novelties you can find at the local watering holes!

Posted in vacationblogging | Comments Off

Climate change: One little problem with the “they’re in it for the money” argument

I’m always surprised to see climate-change deniers resort to the argument that scientists who warn about global warming are “only in it for the money.” Do they not realize the tiny amount of money that goes into climate change research compared to the vast sums reaped by the fossil fuel industry?

Then it occurred to me: Maybe they actually have no idea what it’s like to be a scholarly researcher, and how little money this research earns for them. So I decided to look up the numbers myself. Here’s what I found:


The fossil fuel industry in the US brings in about 100 times more revenue than the government spends on climate change research. So if you’re going to argue, “they’re in it for the money,” you probably want to take this into account. The fossil fuel industry has much more to gain by “proving” that global climate change isn’t caused by their products than publicly-funded scientists do by showing that fossil fuels do cause climate change.

Or consider another way of looking at the problem. How much can an individual with a PhD earn working on climate change research in academia versus working for the fossil fuel industry?


Once again, if you’re just in it for the money, you and your PhD are much better off working for industry than in a university research position.

This is something that is mind-blowingly obvious to anyone who works in or around academia (but perhaps not so much for the general public). The people who do this work aren’t in it for the money. If they were just interested in making a lot of money, for someone with their level of education, there are many, many other, easier ways to do it.

Posted in General | Comments Off

Apple’s new MacBook is perfect…except for one (not so) little thing

I’m typing this on my brand-new, ultra-slick, ultra-light Apple MacBook. Some folks have complained that it is woefully underpowered, that the keyboard doesn’t have the same, easy action as the previous models, that there is only one port, which is used both to charge the computer and connect to devices.

I can live with all that. This computer isn’t my primary machine (and it still vastly outpowers my 2010 MacBook Air), so I’m not bothered by compromises in speed. I love the crisp “retina” display, the amazing taptic trackpad, and the gorgeous, individually backlit keys. It’s even got better speakers than my 11-inch MacBook Air, and double the battery life, in a device that is thinner and lighter.

But there’s one place that Apple screwed up on this one. For years, all the way back to my 2001 titanium PowerBook G4, I’ve enjoyed one of the best-designed power supplies of any computer, ever. The plug flips conveniently out of the way, and two little clips flip out to allow you to wrap the cord neatly around the brick itself. No muss, no fuss. For nearly 15 years, Apple has maintained this elegant design for all its laptops. Now, inexplicably, for the new MacBook, they’ve abandoned it. Instead of providing handy folding tabs that must add all of 30 cents to the manufacturing cost of the power supply, they leave them out completely. This photo shows you the difference:

Which power supply would you prefer? I’d take the “old” one on the left even though it’s considerably larger.

I’m not going to return the computer, which is beautiful in every other way, but every time I look at that power supply, I will think about how it could have been. What were you thinking, Jony Ive?

Posted in Technology | 1 Comment

Are liberals really just as deluded about GW as conservatives?

This article has been making the rounds lately: Six Myths About Climate Change that Liberals Rarely Question.

It’s a fascinating piece, which seems to somehow equate the people who want to do something about global warming with the people who want to continue with business as usual. I’m really not sure what the point is, so let’s just take the “myths” one by one:

Myth #1: Liberals Are Not In Denial

The thrust of this argument seems to be that since liberals try to sell global warming solutions as not terribly painful, then liberals themselves have no clue how tough global warming will be to stop. It’s as if the article’s author, Eric Lindberg, thinks that if only conservatives were told that they would not only have to give up their SUVs, but also give up their guns and submit their daughters to forced abortions, they’d suddenly wake up and support reforms that would help slow global warming.

I think most liberals who are paying attention understand that global warming is a super-tough problem, and that it will require serious changes to be made. But they also understand that the changes have to be made by everyone, together. If half the planet gets serious about fighting global warming, the other half will have no problem negating those efforts.

Myth #2: Republicans are Still More to Blame

Everyone burns fossil fuels, including Democrats, therefore Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans for global warming.

Right. Because Republicans are so on board with emissions caps, or carbon taxes, or efficiency standards for light bulbs and appliances. So since liberals don’t think we can all just hold hands and magically reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, they’re just as much to blame for lack of political progress on global warming as conservatives? There’s a myth at work here, but I think it’s going on in the minds of idealists like Lindberg than in todays “liberals.”

Myth #3: Renewable Energy Can Replace Fossil Fuels

Now we may be getting to the heart of Lindeman’s argument. Here he’s essentially claiming that there is no technological solution to global warming. The human way of life is what is causing it, and creating more solar panels and wind farms will only stoke demand. The very act of building these things consumes energy, and the cycle will be impossible to escape.

I suppose if this argument is true then Lindeman does have a point… a point that, what, we need to undergo mass sterilization to reduce human population? I would submit that the jury is still out on whether there is a technological solution, that human innovation has done incredible things in the past 100 years and voluntarily returning the world to the stone age is infinitely less plausible than using our amazing talents to find another way out of this dilemma. Of course the ultimate solution will probably require us to change, but these changes might take the form of using more public transportation, building denser housing, and requiring more stringent efficiency standards for all of our favorite vehicles and appliances, not tearing down all the factories.

Myth 4: The Coming “Knowledge Economy” Will be a Low-Energy Economy

This is pretty much a repeat of Myth #3. See above.

Myth 5: We can Reverse Global Warming Without Changing our Current Lifestyles

This is a repeat of all of the above, with the perverse assertion that solving global warming is easy since all we need to do is stop burning fossil fuels. Also, preventing world hunger is a simple matter of everyone eating enough.

Myth 6: There is Nothing I Can Do

Ironically, if you believe the rest of Lindeman’s argument, then Myth #6 is almost certainly true. This myth seems to contradict the others. If you think we don’t have to change our lifestyles to solve global warming, then you would probably also think there is something you can do to solve global warming, right?

No, it seems to me that most liberals understand at a much more visceral level than Lindeman how difficult global warming is to solve—and how difficult the remedies are to sell. I don’t claim to have a simple solution to the problem, but I certainly believe that the solution will come from the folks who at least acknowledge the existence of a problem and are willing to consider making changes in order to solve it.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

How many iPhone 6s can fit in a 747?

A recent post in MacRumors included photos of a 747 freighter loaded to the gills with iPhone 6s:

Source: MacRumors

The obvious question: How many phones is that? Should Apple be concerned about putting so much valuable cargo in a single jet?

Well, the larger iPhone 6 is 6.2 by 3.06 inches by just over a quarter-inch thick. Let’s assume the boxes are at least a half-inch bigger on the longer dimensions, so 6.7 by 3.56 inches. They have to be big enough to fit the charger, cables, and phones, so they are probably at least 1.25 inches thick.

So each phone in its packaging takes up a minimum of just over 30 cubic inches, which means about 57 phones per cubic foot. The 747-400 freighter has a cargo volume of 26,947 cubic feet, so if you could completely fill the available space, then that would be over 1.5 million phones!

Even if the packing isn’t perfectly efficient, it appears that well over 1 million phones can fit inside a 747 freighter.

Last year, Apple sold 150 million iPhones, so assuming a 50% increase in sales over last year, Apple would need about 225 747s to transport a year’s worth of phones.

So the risk in shipping a plane full of nothing but iPhones would represent less than 0.5 percent of Apple’s annual iPhone sales.

Still, 1 million iPhones is quite a rich cargo: the base large model (unsubsidized by carriers) retails for $749.99. That means a single planeload represents three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of cargo!

Posted in General | Comments Off

Mesa Verde

First time at Mesa Verde. Amazing place.







Posted in vacationblogging | Comments Off

The robots really are taking over this time

It’s easy to dismiss fear of automation as needless paranoia. After all, we’re nowhere near the apocalypse suggested in movies like The Terminator. Robot armies aren’t coming to conquer the world.

But might they be coming for our jobs?

In the 1980s, as robots began to start replacing humans on automobile assembly lines, there was much hand-wringing as unions wondered whether the Detroit engines of American industry would soon be powered by automatons, leaving millions of automobile workers out of jobs.

Those fears slowly ebbed as the Reagan recovery became the Clinton boom. Then September 11 happened and we all started worrying about terrorists instead of robots. In fact US automotive manufacturing employment has been relatively steady from 1980 to the present, with the exception of the current recession, which resulted in a loss of about 300,000 jobs that don’t seem to be coming back. Add to that the fact that car production has been going up without a corresponding increase in employment and we can see that robots do indeed appear to be costing American jobs, at least in automotive manufacturing.

But maybe we can make up for that with jobs producing the robots themselves, right? Not according to Andrew McAfee. He argues that we are now approaching a critical point where automation will erode jobs significantly faster than jobs can be created.

Think about technologies like the Google Car.


Last year, Lawrence D. Burns, former vice president for research and development at General Motors and now a Google consultant, led a study at the Earth Institute at Columbia University on transforming personal mobility.

The researchers found that Manhattan’s 13,000 taxis made 470,000 trips a day. Their average speed was 10 to 11 m.p.h., carrying an average of 1.4 passengers per trip with an average wait time of five minutes.

In comparison, the report said, it is possible for a futuristic robot fleet of 9,000 shared automated vehicles hailed by smartphone to match that capacity with a wait time of less than one minute. Assuming a 15 percent profit, the current cost of taxi service would be about $4 per trip mile, while in contrast, it was estimated, a Manhattan-based driverless vehicle fleet would cost about 50 cents per mile.

Take a moment to consider the employment impact of this change. Instead of 13,000 taxis in New York, there would be 9,000 Google Cars. Assuming the current fleet runs on three shifts (as I understand most of them do), we’re talking about nearly 50,000 jobs, in New York City alone. Now imagine similar workforce replacements for delivery drivers, bus drivers, limousine drivers. You could be talking about well over 100,000 jobs, in just one city, replaced by just one technology.

Now consider this: Driving isn’t the only human job that would be relatively easy to replace with technology that is either currently available or will be available in the next few years. One of the fastest-growing industries, medical care, is also ripe for similar innovations. Current robotics technology could replace 90 percent of what nurses and nurses’ assistants do. And doctors might not be far behind. How difficult would it be, even with current technology, to create a diagnostic robot with access to a vast database of medical information? Perhaps in difficult cases the robot might need to consult with a human, but for routine treatment for strep throat, flu, or other common ailments, why would a doctor be necessary at all?

With the possible exception of so-called “creative” work, it’s hard to come up with a profession that couldn’t be replaced by a robot, in whole or in part.

What jobs that remain in this new automatopia would be extremely poorly-paid, for there would be dozens of people competing for every opportunity, no matter how meager. The result would be, barring an aggressive change to our social structure, economic armageddon.

Indeed, massive social upheaval would be impossible to avoid, whether it was done deliberately in an effort to stave off the inevitable consequences of hyperautomation, or simply allowed to occur “naturally” as a result of robots replacing jobs on a scale no one imagined the need to plan for.

One possible way to avoid the worst effects of automation is something I’ve been thinking would be a good idea to start now: Provide every American with a guaranteed income. It could start small, perhaps $5,000 per person per year in addition to whatever other income they have (including other public assistance). Then as the effects of automation became larger, the guarantee could become larger too, until it was enough for anyone to live on. People would only have to work if they wanted to, and many, presumably, would choose not to. Productivity would continue to merrily increase as the robots and their programmers got better at their jobs, so there should be plenty for everyone.

It’s not such a far-fetched idea, and has even proceeded to the level of a public referendum in Switzerland. But other solutions, such as limiting the workweek or mandating more government services (provided by people, not robots), could work as well.

These technologies are not going to wait for us to dither about how to handle them on a social / governmental scale. And if you don’t believe that a technology can fundamentally alter the economy, you need only consider the impact of the automobile, or the telephone. Those devices led to massive changes in the structure of the American workplace — from the 5-day workweek to the daily commute — and there is no reason to think that the impact of robotics will be any less dramatic. In fact, there’s every reason to believe that its impact will be even greater.

Posted in General | 2 Comments

Granada, part 2

The highlight of Granada is definitely the Nazrid Palace, which includes some of the most amazing, intricate Islamic art you will ever find.

This photo comes from the baths, and shows how even the lightwells are an opportunity to dazzle:


The “wine gate” gives an even bigger hint of what is to come.


Our tickets to the palace let us enter only at night — but the dramatic lighting made for quite an experience. To me the most amazing thing about this place is the ceilings. Here’s one made of wood:


And here is a ceiling with nearly infinite arches, arches built on arches built on yet more arches:


Nora took many more photos than I did, and she has already written a post on them. But first I’m going to steal one of her photos to post here:

This is a near-perfect photo of the reflecting pool at the palace. In the distance is the throne room.

Posted in vacationblogging | Comments Off

Granada, part 1

Granada, home of the Alhambra, is in the south of Spain, a hilly town, just out of sight of the Mediterranean, but within sight of the massive Sierra Nevada mountain range. Here Nora and Greta are walking down one of the hills.


The town has some lovely, narrow streets, including this one:


More photos below!

Continue reading

Posted in vacationblogging | Comments Off

More sights in Córdoba

A few more pics from Córdoba.

This is the “Roman Bridge.” Not sure quite how much of it is original Roman manufacture, but it was fun walking across to get a view of the city.

Here’s the view from Alcázar de los Reyes Cristianos, a neat old castle with beautiful gardens.

Here are Nora and Greta in the gardens

And here are Greta and I.

Neat view of some of the columnar-sculpted cypresses.

The best shot of the ubiquitous orange trees I’ve managed, although Nora points out that my sky is blown out in this shot.

Posted in vacationblogging | Comments Off

The Great Mosque of Córdoba

The one sight I did not want to miss in Spain was the Cordoba mosque, one the best-preserved ancient mosques in the world. Arriving on Christmas, we couldn’t go inside, but here is a taste of what is to come:

We were staying in the Jewish quarter, so decided to eat at a Jewish restaurant. Fantastic food, if not strictly kosher.

Next day we finally entered the mosque, which has been rechristened as a Catholic church. Below the fold is a set of photos that should give you an idea of how Christian and Muslim were oddly juxtaposed.

Continue reading

Posted in vacationblogging | Comments Off

Catalan coinage

Some coins from the National Museum of Catalan Art. These are some large images so I’m going to place most of them below the fold.


More photos below:

Continue reading

Posted in General | Comments Off


We’re in Spain for the holidays, having a great time. Some photos from our time in Barcelona:


The Sagrada Familia cathedral — still unfinished, but quite impressive!


The interior of the cathedral — light pouring in through stained glass.


Some Tapas — assorted meats and an anchovy salad.


A delicious Paella. Definitely better than anything I’ve had stateside.


A view of the old cathedral.


We took this tram across the harbor.


Here we are on the tram.


The view from the tram.


This is a bit of famous Barcelona architecture, an apartment building designed by Gaudi.


Posted in vacationblogging | Comments Off

Pilot mountain summit




Posted in General | Comments Off

Campsite 1

Near Butter Gap, Pisgah National Forest


Posted in vacationblogging | Comments Off

The journey’s first mishap

Joe shows Sam how to handle a dead battery. Sam ignores Joe.


Posted in General | Comments Off

Food for two and a half days

I’m getting ready for a hike in the Appalachians. Here is our food supply for the next couple of days. I’ll be doing small updates like this as much as I can during the trip.


Posted in General | Comments Off