apk zipalign

A year or more ago, I was really struggling with zc.buildout, a Python based tool for building out "repeatable" deployments. Buildout makes setuptools actually usable, particularly for development and deployment of web apps, although there are many other uses.

Buildout keeps everything local, allowing one app to use version 3.4.2 of one package while another app can use 3.5.2. But more than just being an 'egg' / Python package manager, it can do other tasks as well - local builds of tools (from libxml to MySQL and more), again allowing one app to build and use MySQL 5.0.x and another app to use 5.1.x; or just allowing an app to be installed onto a new box and get everything it needs, from web server to RDBMS to Memcached and beyond. We don't use all of these features (yet), but it's a nice dream.

Already it's very nice to be able to make a git clone of a customer app, run buildout, and then start it up. Buildout will put setuptools to work to ensure that proper versions of dependent components are installed (and, quite nicely, it's very easy to share both a download cache and a collection of 'installed eggs' - multiple versions living side by side, with individual buildouts picking the one they desire).

But it was not easy to get to this golden land. Prior to using Buildout, we'd check our code out of our CVS repository. Our customer apps were just another Python package, nothing special (not an application, and - more importantly - not packaged up in 'distutils' style). As we started to make more and more reusable parts, we had to do a lot of checkouts; and so I wrote a tool to help automate this checkout process. It would also check out other third party code from public Subversion repositories; all because it was easier to check out a particular tag of 'SQLAlchemy' or 'zc.table' than to try to install them into a classic-style Zope 3 'instance home'.

But it was getting harder and harder to keep up with other packages. We couldn't follow dependencies in this way, for one thing; and it required some deep knowledge of some public SVN repository layouts in order to get particular revision numbers or tags.

'Buildout' promised to change all of that, and offer us the chance to use real, honest-to-goodness distributed Python packages/eggs. But getting there was so very hard when there are deadlines beating you down.

I took a lot of my frustration out on both Setuptools (which is so goddamn woefully incomplete) and Buildout. But the fault was really in ourselves... at least, in a way. As mentioned above, it was easier to just checkout 'mypackage' into$INSTANCE_HOME/lib/python/mypackage than to figure out the install options for distutils/setuptools. As such, NONE of our code was in the Python 'distutils' style. We put some new packages into that style, but would still just check out a sub-path explicitly with CVS just like we were doing with public SVN code.

Part of the big problem that we had which made it so difficult was that we had hung onto CVS for, perhaps, too long. And doing massive file and directory restructuring with CVS is too painful to contemplate. But moving to Subversion never seemed worth the effort, and so we held on to CVS. But I knew I'd have to restructure the code someday.

Fortunately, Git arrived. Well, it had been there for a while; but it was maturing and quite fascinating and it offered us a chance to leapfrog over SVN and into proper source code management. Git is an amazing tool (perhaps made more so by being chained to CVS for so long), and it provided me with the opportunities to really restructure our code, including ripping apart single top-level packages into multiple namespaced packages (ie - instead of 'example' being the root node with 'core' and 'kickass' subpackages, I could split that into 'example.core' and 'example.kickass' as separate packages and Git repositories while keeping full histories).

For a while, I used Git with its cvsimport and cvsexportcommit tools to clean up some of our wayward branches in CVS, while starting to play with Buildout. I was still struggling to get a Zope 3 site up and running using our frameworks. And here... well, the fault was partly in ourselves for having to go through fire to get our code into acceptable 'distutils' style packages, which made learning Buildout all the more hard. But the available documentation (comprehensive, but in long doctest style documents) for some of the Zope 3 related recipes was very difficult to follow. Hell - just knowing which recipes to use was difficult!

But after many months of frustrated half-attempts, often beaten down by other pressures, I opened a few different tabs for different core Buildout recipes in my browser and furiously fought through them all... And boom! Got something working!

Unfortunately it was one of those processes where by the time I got out of the tunnel, I had no idea how exactly I had made it through. One of my big complaints as I was struggling was the lack of additional information, stories of struggle and triumph, etc. And there I was - unable to share much myself! I can't even remember when I was able to break through. It's been quite a few months. Just a couple of weeks ago we deployed our last major old customer on this new setup; and we can't imagine working any other way now.

'Git' and 'Buildout' have both been incredibly empowering. What was most difficult, for us, was that it was very difficult to make the move in small steps. Once we started having proper distutils style packages in Git, they couldn't be cloned into an instance home as a basic Python package (ie, we couldn't do the equivalent of cvs checkout -d mypackage Packages/mypackage/src/mypackage and get just that subdirectory). And we couldn't easily make distributions of our core packages and use them in a classic Zope 3 style instance home (I did come up with a solution that used virtualenv to mix and match the two worlds, but I don't think it was ever put to use in production).

So it was a long and hard road, but the payoffs were nearly immediate: we could start using more community components (and there are some terrific components/packages available for Zope 3); we could more easily use other Python packages as well (no need to have some custom trick to install ezPyCrypto, or be surprised when we deploy onto a new server and realize that we forgot some common packages). Moving customers to new server boxes was much easier, particularly for the smaller customers. And we can update customer apps to new versions with greater confidence than before when we might just try to 'cvs up' from a high location and hope everything updated OK (and who knows what versions would actually come out the other end). Now a customer deployment is a single Git package - everything else is supplied as fully packaged distributions. It's now very hard to 'break the build' as all of the components that are NOT specific to that customer have to come from a software release, which requires a very explicit action.

I've recently been doing some work to support ZODB 3.8 BlobFiles in our Zope 3 based sites and applications. Doing this brought me back around to seeing some behavior I've seen in the past and probably learned to ignore: uploading a large file from Safari using a basic HTML form (with proper encoding type, POST, etc) seems to take inexplicably long. Even worse - once behind Apache, you might not get an expected response, if any. You might get a 'timed out' response, unsure if the app server has everything and will finish the request/response cycle on its own.

It turns out that Safari does not eagerly send along authentication information along with each request when logged in with Basic Auth. When it does, it seems to have a very short time window.

So say you're logged in to your application with basic auth (for better or worse). The normal pattern is that when encountering an unauthenticated situation, Zope will challenge with a 401 status code and the WWW-Authenticate header (or something like that - I'm away from all specs right now). If you're not logged in, then you get the basic auth dialog box and send along the credentials. If you are "logged in", then the browser doesn't ask for credentials again, but just sends them along.

The downside is that this causes a request to be repeated. And if you just tried uploading a 5 MB file, then that whole file has to be re-submitted to make the full request.

It's the right thing to do with the basic (ha!) information at hand - trying to post all of that data in a single request. But Safarishould recognize that it's submitting to the same server (if not the same URL!) and should automatically include the auth headers. Safari seems to do this, but only on requests in very short windows.

Firefox, on the other hand, seems to have a much longer window in which it will send the credentials along automatically on the first request, instead of waiting for the challenge.

I don't know how other browsers do it. I'm not sure what the spec says, if anything. Glancing at O'Reilly's "HTTP - The Definitive Guide" didn't seem to give any indication of whether it's better for the client to assume that it should send the authentication tokens along with each request back to the same server, or if it's better for the client to hold off on constantly sending that info along unless challenged.

Most of the time this doesn't really seem to matter - it's not something end users typically see as it goes by fast enough to rarely be noticed. Of course there are other ways of getting credentials (cookies, sessions, subdomain/remote ip mapping, etc) which we often use on the main public-facing side of our sites. But for content management and admin, Basic Auth is such an easy fallback, especially in a framework like Zope (1, 2, or 3) which has long had a strong security story and would automatically handle this crap for you way back in the days of Bobo (1996, if not earlier).

It's just an annoyance. Glad I nailed it down to this: uploading large files with Safari (I think IE is, or was, similar) to basic-auth protected sites often can time out because the browser posts once, gets the 401-Unauthorized challenge, and does the post again - this time with the auth info.

Solutions:

• don't use basic auth for sites that expect moderate to heavy uploading via forms.


• recommend and/or use browsers that send the auth token along more often in the first request.


• provide better interfaces for uploading files; providing better communication with the uploader about status, and perhaps having a better interface into the destination web app. Fortunately there are appear to be some free and open solutions out there already.

Wheee!

With a fair amount of success, I've pulled in the entries from the old Griddle Noise into a Squarespace account. I've long been dissatisfied with Blogger... It was good enough for a free service, I guess, but I just couldn't take it any more. It was hard to use Markdown, and it was hard to use its "wysiwyg" editor on Safari. Results were unpredictable. So I'm giving Squarespace a try.

It's really quite a nice service, and it will definitely do for now. The big issue is to either:

• Make time to write


• Write smaller

So head over to eucci.squarespace.com/griddle-noise. Gods and time willing, I'll get around to knocking out my tech thoughts again on topics such as:

• Python


• Zope 3 Component Architecture


• Buildout and the realization of the component dream (almost)


• Git


• Object publishing


• etc...

There are three things that I remember about IPC 8 (International Python Conference 8), besides it being the only Python conference which I've had the luxury of attending.

1. Riding from Fredericksburg to somewhere outside of DC in a major Virginia snowstorm, only the first or second such snowstorm I had seen since moving to the area in late 1997.


2. Meeting Tres Seaver.


3. The final keynote, masterfully given by Randy Pausch.

Pausch, who passed away earlier today (July 25, 2008), was charismatic, smart, and opinionated, and his keynote was funny and engaging. I must admit that I forgot Randy's name, but I'll also gladly admit that many of the points he made have remained with me and I still think of them often. There are even a couple of anecdotes which I repeat to others. Not many people can give such memorable speeches and presentations. Thanks, Randy. I'm glad to have met and heard him in person once, and wish I had been able to do so again to thank him for some great insights and inspirations.

I've been using OmniFocus for a while now on my Mac, and made occassional
use of it's predecessor, Kinkless GTD. As an implementation of the
"Getting Things Done"
method, or just as a personal "what am I doing?"
manager, OmniFocus 1.0 was pretty good. I, personally, liked it better than
the alternatives I tried, but some of that may be due to familiarity with
the OmniOutliner heritage.
And OmniOutliner remains one of the greatest Mac OS X applications ever written.
I believe it's one of the greatest outliners ever written. Sure, it doesn't have Mind Mapping support and it
can't run a slideshow (although its data can be exported to OmniGraffle or Keynote).
OmniOutliner is a joy because it's fast, beautiful, ridiculously easy to use,
while still having a fair amount of power and flexibility. Kinkless GTD was
actually a set of AppleScripts that made OmniOutliner act like a specialized
GTD application (which OmniFocus now does natively).

But when it came to OmniFocus, I only used it at work, and even there I only used it intermittently.
But with the 1.1 "Sneaky-Peek" version of the desktop client (still under development), OmniFocus
supports synchronization via MobileMe or any WebDAV server. This not only
enables me to share this information between the office, home, and the
rarely used laptop, but it enables sharing with the awesome new
OmniFocus for iPhone.

Second only to the iTunes Remote, OmniFocus for iPhone is the coolest mobile
application I've seen so far on this young platform. OmniFocus for iPhone
(or iPod Touch) can synchronize over Wi-Fi, Edge, or 3G. That alone makes it
very useful. Cooler still is that it's location aware. "GTD" has a strong
concept of contexts. A project may require picking up supplies at an office
supply store, assembling at home, and mailing out items at the post office.
With OmniFocus, you can add location information to any context. This
location information may be based on where you currently stand (using
Location Services), on a manually entered address, on an address from a
Contact record, or on a business search. Then when looking at the "By
Location" screen in OmniFocus, available actions get grouped by their
location in relation to where you currently stand. "Grocery Store: 1 Mile;
Post Office: 3 Miles..." Very Cool.

This is the first electronic implementation of GTD that actually appears
usable. Even if you don't follow GTD religiously (I certainly don't), the
projects/contexts combination is an effective way of organizing actions.
The location-aware contexts in OmniFocus for iPhone help answer the
question "what can I do based on where I am?" When used well, it should make
it harder to forget those little items that you needed to do or pick up
for some small project.

Like many others, I was bit hard by the server failure that crippled the big iPhone 2.0 update process this morning. It robbed me of said morning, and I opted to take the day off work. It's been a bit of a tough week, and last night I did my first show in months, and had company over until past 3AM afterwards. Since things are about to get crazy at work, I decided that I needed a day to catch back up on sleep while waiting for my phone to work again.

A few hours later, the phone worked.

One of the most surprising and enjoyable elements is the iTunes Remote. Full and comprehensive access to my fairly large iTunes library on the iMac: all playlists, etc, with the ability to control volume, jump around in songs, see artwork - just like the 'iPod' iPhone application! Sometimes, particularly in the morning, I might turn on Front Row and carry the nice little Apple Remote around with me to have some control over songs while getting dressed in the upstairs loft, but using the remote from up there often required reaching far over the edges and trying to point the remote in the direction of the iMac, just to be able to skip forward a track or two.

But now, I can control it all from the iPhone, without needing a line of sight! In fact, this might be what pushes me to pick up an Airport Express or two (one for speakers in said upstairs loft, maybe one to bring music out on the patio or the bathroom). Full access and control of 29 and a half days of available music playable out of real speakers and controlled by an untethered iPod size device - beautiful.

I’m a bit excited about Mac OS X “Snow Leopard”. Few user-visible changes, with a focus on fine-tuning and giving developers better access to capabilities of modern hardware. It appears that Apple’s experience in making a lightweight Mac OS X “Core OS” for the iPhone will also drive this release.

One of my favorite operating system releases was OS/2 “Warp” (OS/2 3.0). OS/2 2.0 was a fascinating creature - completely divorced from Microsoft, OS/2 2.0 delivered an aggressively object-oriented runtime built on SOM (a desktop implementation of some of CORBA 1.x, I believe). It was radically different from Window 3.x. It’s hardware requirements were a bit high for the times, but it was a solid OS.

What impressed me about OS/2 3.0 “Warp” was that it’s system requirements were in some cases significantly LESS than OS/2 2.0, while performing better. I don’t know of any majoro user-visible adjustments (this was before operating system releases became the giant dog’n’pony shows that have been expected since both Windows 95 and Mac OS X).

I think that even though desktop and laptop hardware continue to get better, the rapid growth rates seen between 1995 and 2005 are slowing down. Now the pressure is on connectivity, portability, and storage storage storage for all of those mp3s and movies and photos. I think both Windows XP and Vista, along with Mac OS X 10.4 and particularly 10.5 have been a bit cavalier about their usage / expectation of resource availability without doing a good job of cleaning up afterwards. Removing a ‘TemporaryFiles’ folder used by Apple’s “Soundtrack Pro” program gave me back 25 GB of disk space. 25GB! I expect that when doing lossless audio work, I’m going to leave a lot of turds behind. But not that many. That’s an accumulation over only a few months. Now some of that may have been due to crashes brought on by the instability in Mac OS X 10.5.2’s audio subsystem (particularly in relation to some USB audio devices). But still - 25 gig! Over the course of just a couple of months!

I think that Apple is at a good place to do this. Good housekeeping is required - otherwise you end up with situations like Mac OS ‘Classic’ or even Windows Vista, where there is so much old baggage, bad hacks, outdated mentalities, etc, all in play; it makes it difficult to move the platform forward. Some companies and developers have always been mindful of this, electing to keep their products lean and fast, always (see Ableton Live - hands down, the most impressive audio application out there). Other companies don’t support that philosophy for whatever reason - backwards compatibility, rush to market, a combination of the two, etc.

This far into the Mac OS X life cycle, there’s not many new dog’n’pony features to add. The API’s have stabalized, the developer tools offer more than they ever have (Interface Builder 3 is a terrific update), the Finder and Spotlight are actually fast and usable; applications and utilities from both inside and outside of Apple are going to really shine on Mac OS X 10.5 with all that it offers to developers. A new age of PDA’s are upon us, whether it’s a device like an iPhone, an ultra-mobile Asus Eee-PC style portable, or even the Macbook Air: secondary and tertiary devices are really taking off.

I think that an underlying aspect part of the ‘Snow Leopard’ plan is to allow such devices, made by Apple (naturally), to proliferate. When it was announced that the iPhone was built on Mac OS X, I was surprised - Mac OS X has been a pretty wasteful OS - or at least, one that would consume more resources than realized (often for caching, interestingly enough). A standard install is full of crap that may be useful, but often takes up space. How many gigabytes of printer drivers now? To take the fine tuning and resource management ideas from the iPhone variation of OS X into the main system is what I think will allow for Apple to finally make the Eee PC style portable that everyone wanted the Macbook Air to be.

I’m putting my money on some kind of small device, priced around $600-$800, coming out at or around the same time as Snow Leopard. Combined with Mobile Me and Snow Leopard Server’s increasingly Exchange-like feature set (but better priced and more understandable for small organizations), the ubiquitous-data-access capability is there.

Today’s full-featured laptops (MacBooks, Inspirons, whatever) are their own entities; my aging iBook gets used rarely as I just don’t have as much data or software set up on it, and it’s sometimes too big of a pain to keep in sync.

The XO and Eee-PCs (or whatever they’re called) are also separate from the rest of one’s life; useful as a fun or educational toy, or as a geek’s favorite gadget to see what they can get running on such a little device. Most of the other developments I’ve seen in this area have centered around “how cheap and how small can we make a laptop/portable that will run (Linux/Windows XP)”. But outside of education, if this is the only focus being given, then these companies are going to be making nothing more than the next round of casual gadgets that get tossed or buried after a few months - especially if a key factor of what made Palm devices so popular (for a while) is completely neglected.

The Macbook Air is deliberately designed as a complementary computer, using the master’s optical drive even. While sexy, I think the Macbook Air misses the mark on a few items. But I think it’s an indication of things to come - laptops deliberately designed to complement your main machine. Smaller devices, from the Palm to the iPhone, have done this. And they’ll also be designed to work with your (or your company’s) data, which the Blackberry has done (and the iPhone will do when its new ‘enterprise’ support rolls out). Getting this onto other devices, without being constrained to an enterprisey system like Notes or Outlook, is where things really appear to be headed. It’s certainly something that I’d like to have. And the more I look at Snow Leopard, the more I believe that Apple is sneaking ahead of the crowd into delivering this into the hands of consumers. They’re skating to where the puck is going to be.

Granted, Windows “Live Mesh” looks to be heading in the same direction. But after Vista, Microsoft needs to reign in the Windows kernel and distribution. Windows Server 2008 and some of what has been leaked (or speculated) about “Windows 7” seem to indicate that Microsoft is aware of this. And how could they not be? But I think that even with their vast resources, Microsoft has a long ways to go to catch up - even though it appears that they’ve been playing in this area (tablet computing, ultra-mobile pc’s) for a while. A deep cleansing of the Windows core is desparately needed. And then a deep re-implementation of the UI may be needed.

Apple had a terrific luxury (and great idea) with the iPhone. While sharing the same kernel and many same APIs as the desktop (and server) Mac OS X, it has an entirely new UI that is dedicated to its intended use. Windows CE, on the other hand, tried to bring the Windows 95 look and feel to tiny devices and now I’m really not so sure it was a good idea. It allowed Microsoft to punt on some usability and design issues by falling back on the way things work on the desktop. I still see this, even in some of the newest and fanciest “iPhone killers”: some of these have a very fancy launcher app; some even have a very fancy phone and contact app that spins around in 3D and responds to gestures. But then, suddenly, you’re in the tiny-font, tiny-scrollbar, pixelated, stylus-driven world of the interior. It’s like going into a grand building like The Plaza (back when it was a hotel, at least), and finding the inside full of grey linoleum floors, flickering flourescent lights, and cinderblock walls reminiscent of an old hospital or elementary school. Quite the let-down (a lot of courthouses are like this, actually).

I also think Apple was smart to NOT have an SDK at the launch of the iPhone. I bet they would have liked one, but I think the iPhone had to launch when it did, and perhaps not-quite-everything was ready yet. If one looks back at the classic Macintosh and Palm devices and operating systems, you see systems that pulled of very clever hacks to fit within the price and size constraints of the time. The Lisa was much more than a $10,000 Macintosh - it had many features from power management to an OpenDoc style multi-tasking document based UI. But to offer those features, it was priced well out of reach. The Macintosh squeezed as much as it could down into a 128K Ram machine, and the compromises they had to make in order for that to work would end up haunting the company until its near-death. The Palm, too, took the ideas of the Newton and other tablet devices and stripped them down into a size and price point approachable by the masses. And like Apple, the design decisions that were made to make that work have crippled the Palm OS so much that even Palm sells half of its devices with Windows CE (or whatever CE is called these days). Those compromises are bad enough to deal with on your own - but when having to support third party developers and then provide some degree of backwards compatibility, it can just kill you.

By taking the time to put the SDK into beta, to polish up the OS and its APIs, I think Apple will avoid a repeat of that story. Instead of having to support every little exposed compromise that may have been made to get the iPhones out the door last June, Apple could tidy them up. By using a beta period for the SDK and next major release of the software, Apple can respond to feedback and make changes and adjustments before they become permanent.

I just received the Korm Plastics re-release of The Hafler Trio’s Dislocation. I’ve been waiting for this one more than any of the others thus far. The Korm Plastics re-issue series is a magnificent undertaking wherein a large chunk of Hafler Trio material that has long been unavailable or available only in “wrong” versions is being re-issued in definitive form. The packaging for each has been stunning: each release in a booklet sized “wallet” form, with full booklets, posters, post-cards, and more. The releases are all wrapped in a vellum (or vellum-like) material with additional writing. The packaging alone is of the highest grade - far higher than what these releases saw in their original forms (even ones that were also in wallet/booklet form).

I first became interested in The Hafler Trio when the Hafler Trio / Nurse With Wound collaboration was issued on CD, which I picked up in … 1995? 96? I was a big Nurse With Wound fan at the time and, thus, gobbled this one up. I was blown away. While I recognized many Nurse With Wound sounds, the overall production and flow was of a different nature. Similar, yes, in it all being (perhaps) some form of Musique:Concrete. It just sounded a bit more … polished? Subtle? In any case, it remains a personal favorite.

At this time, I was 20-21 years old, poor, bla bla bla. Most of these CDs that I liked were all import and out of my price range (when they could even be found). But one day around this time, I was in a used cassette shop, and came across the original Hafler Trio Dislocation cassette. For $4! It was a Staaltape release, in a bag (my second one - a couple of years earlier I picked up what turned out to be a fairly rare Legendary Pink Dots cassette in the same style of packaging, mostly because I didn’t yet have a CD player). Not knowing much of The Hafler Trio at the time, I knew that this was something I should get, as it was unlikely that I would easily come across such a find for years to come.

I liked the tape, but I admit that it took a while to grow on me. It was very quiet and subtle, with a lot of field recordings. It was something that I enjoyed, but I found that I had to give it more attention than similar recordings from other artists. I loved having it on tape, though. It heightened the “found sound” feeling. And I loved what was inside the bag (besides the unlabeled cassette). Inside, there was heavy paper with fragments of maps on one side and various clippings on the other. It was far more interesting than some of the cheap shock imagery (or just cheap packaging) used, again, by somewhat similar artists that interested me at that time.

However, as fascinating as it all was, that would be it for me and The Hafler Trio until 3-4 years later when, after moving to the east coast, I’d find a copy of A bag of cats at Printed Matter’s old Wooster Street location in NYC. After that find, I’d lap up whatever I could.

So Dislocation has been held in a special place, and I’d been watching that Korm re-issue series list tick along, waiting for this one to show up. Now it’s here. And it’s much more impressive than imagined. First, the booklet is a new heavy-stock foldout variation of the same maps found within the cassette version. When folded up… I can’t even describe it, really. It’s just beautiful and very different from the booklets that have accompanied the rest of the re-issue series.

But what’s really been impressive has been the audio. This time, I have no prior CD to compare; only tape. And I love tape. But now, more than any other re-issue done thus far, I can really see how well done the audio restoration has been. Remarkably well done. This album deserved (and required) it. As much as I loved the “found sound” fuzzy feeling I got from the tape, there are a lot of nuances here that I may now appreciate. Goddamn well done.

In my last post, I revisited an earlier write-up of a personal experience involving The Hafler Trio’s so-called Trilogy in Three Parts. I’ve been on a bit of a binge lately, trying to grab up a lot of Hafler Trio releases that I let slip by over the past few years. Right now, I’ve got two thirds of the Exactly series of long-form dual disc releases revolving around the voice of Jónsi Birgisson (Sigur Ros), with one of those releases being in the form of the deluxe packaging from Simply Superior. I’ve been starting to pick up vinyl releases as well and will soon have all three evidences according to Wolf Sheep Cabbage, among others. I even managed to find a well priced vinyl copy of what has become one of my all time favorite albums: A Thirsty Fish.

But on this here Sunday morning, I find myself ill at ease. Shoulders are tense, bones are cracking, mind is dazed yet burning. To try to find a spot of calm, I first went through what I have so far of the Exactly set, but it wasn’t helping today. So I returned, again, to this initial trilogy. I haven’t listened to it much since my grand encounter four years ago. That was just a little too powerful. But up until that point, I got a fair amount of comfort out of the series. It’s still a remarkably powerful. The trick is not to get too lost in it when not wanting great and terrible visions. All I need right now is a warm, sustained, and calming presence. These can do that job rather well - enough to get me through the morning and into a much needed hot shower followed by a cold walk with the dog and some lukewarm coffee.

I was killing late night minutes by reading through pouring empty into the void - a collection of reviews of Hafler Trio material - when I came across a review of the entire trilogy in three parts. The writing was more personal than many of the other reviews, which were written for larger audiences (magazines, record shops, etc). And then I got to the final paragraph:

Deep into No More Twain, Of One Flesh: 11 Unequivocal Obsecrations, I was deep into trance and ripped apart by my own twain — two entities guiding and dividing my life right now — and had to fight my way out of such deep and frightening consciousness and back into the body. Scratches and cold medal were put to use to reinvigorate the breath and to bring myself down out of the super present to the merely present.

"Wow," I thought, "this guy had an experience similar to mine!"

And then I clicked on the source link - and it was, in fact, my own. April 6, 2004. What a wonderful, horrible spring.

And what the fuck has happened to my brain when I look back at many of the things produced / released at that time and wonder how the hell I could do that (and find time to write about it in fairly eloquent terms). Now I have a hard time making a single, simple, goddamn web page for a simple four track online album. How anyone's ever going to hear Like the city, we're bound to last is beyond me at this point.

A friend of mine says, “Ralph Nader is an idiot”, just because Nader is running for president again.

I fucking HATE this line of thinking. Nothing pissed me off more than when watching the documentary on Nader recently and seeing how everyone fucking turned on him in 2004 after championing him in 2000. At least Nader has principals and stands by them. Nearly every ‘liberal’ voice that I had respected proved to me that they had no fucking principals.

Michael Moore in 2000 at a Nader rally: “If you’re voting for the lesser of two evils, you’re still voting for evil!” Four years later, Moore was on the anti-Nader bandwagon.

If we believe in democracy and having choices and voices, then anyone should be able to run for president. 2000 was not Nader’s fault. Gore, and the democrats in general, should have run a better campaign. Just like when teams complained about the Patriots running up the score on them: it’s not the Patriots job to take Tom Brady off the field and stop scoring. It’s YOUR defense’s job to get on the field and stop them (the Giants did it; Philly and Baltimore nearly did it). The democrats should have run better campaigns in 2000 and 2004. They could have stopped Nader from running in 2004 if they had picked some of his causes (just some simple ones) and championed them. But the democrats didn’t.

Honestly - whenever I hear this vitriol against Nader, a man who has championed consumer rights far more than anyone currently running or serving this country, it sounds like people wanting a fucking dictatorship. It’s like the movie ‘moon over paramour’ (or something like that) where there are two posters for the same dictator - red and blue. One guy asks the other who he’s going to vote for, “red or blue”. The other guy says, “it doesn’t matter, it’s a free dictatorship.”

I have the right to vote for whomever I want. And on principal, I will cast my vote for whomever I feel best represents what I want out of a leader. I’m not going to vote for someone just because they where an elephant or donkey lapel pin. I don’t care if my one single vote hands the election over to another eight years of Bush tyranny.

The two party system sucks big time fucking hairy nutsacks. I think South Park represented it best with the “Giant Douche versus Turd Sandwich” vote for school mascot (one of the greatest, and saddest, South Park episodes).

What sucks even more than the two party system is the electoral college being based on representative seats plus senate seats. This causes a vote in Wyoming to count four times as much as a vote in california. Now that’s not fucking fair at all.

The problem isn’t Nader. The whole system is flawed and corrupt and I feel like the anti-Nader rhetoric comes from people who would like to see it stay that way as long as they think they can rig the system to swing to their guy who may be the lesser of two evils.

It’s still evil.

And honestly - seeing the response of so many people against Nader in that film made me absolutely sick with the democratic party and the people who claim to champion its causes. They do not believe in freedom or standing for principals. They’re the selfish, self-absorbed, narcissistic pricks. “Oh, look at me, I write for the nation.” Bit whoop. Nader actually fucking fought hard for things like seatbelts in cars. Big auto wouldn’t do it. They resisted like hell. We all take this for granted now. But it took someone with actual balls to stand up and fight for something so seemingly trivial (now) but which has been a big deal when it comes to saving lives. What has Eric Alterman done for us lately?

The general democratic response to Nader shows that most of these people have no spine, no guts, and they don’t deserve any glory. They certainly don’t deserve my support.

Blaming Nader is a sign of weakness, and a sign that the general democratic party and pundits can't own up to their own fucking mistakes. If they can't do that, they can't lead.