Speech Recognition FreeForAll

here we go.

The problem with using speech recognition software is that you have to have something to say. And have to deal to speak faster than you can type really what you have to deal to do is think of faster than you can speak to is really what it comes down to it a bigger problem for some of us anyway.

But this is the first time that I've ever used speech recognition software and aren't you lucky to be my teeny big audience. not quote teeny big unquote audience. What I said was, teeny page, no, teeny big egg pig Jeannie Ginny Paek Gainey Junie Gainey Kinney Paik take Paek guinea pig has just said that guinea pig. Now it seems to know when I say guinea pig. It learned.

So here I am its 5:18 PM on a Thursday afternoon in Burlington Vermont. I'm in my office looking out the window at the clouds coming in. And I need to go home soon. Fact I need to stop and Montpelier and pick up some pizza at a video store of all places.

I think what we are finding is I have the most me and during--no not the most meandering -- I have the most slow-moving and uninteresting stream of consciousness in the northern hemisphere.

So much for the first test of voice recognition software. Thank you for sharing this delightful experience with me. You people are beautiful.! Ciao.( wow, it even recognizes Italian, when I want to throw a little colloquial Italian into the mix)

Last Snow

For future reference, the last snow melted from the north side of the house on April 26th this year.....

Montreal Triptych

Spring Peepers

The spring peepers are full-on tonight, as you can hear in this recording I made (with my camera, oddly enough) on Center Road just south of here.



Incidentally, I just learned that on Martha's Vineyard they call them "pinkletinks."

This evening I also heard my first hermit thrush of the year.

Fergus Does Montreal, April 2009

Montreal, April 2009

Montreal, April 2009
Originally uploaded by baseballpajamas

Norah in Montreal, April 2009

Montreal, April 2009
Originally uploaded by baseballpajamas

Montreal, April 2009
Originally uploaded by baseballpajamas

Montreal, April 2009
Originally uploaded by baseballpajamas

Woven into Our Lives

Lauren wrote in to Vermont Public Radio this week in praise of poet Galway Kinnell, who was being interviewed by VPR's Jane Lindholm. Here's a short excerpt:

I Might Be Canadian After All

Believe it or not, this might apply to me. If so, Michael Quinn is going to be green with envy, eh?

Pirates of Penzance, Montpelier VT 2009

Blurry, but as you can tell, the boy has some kind of Theater Joy going on.

Did someone mention PIRATES?

Norah as Anne.

"Father, we were ever so worried!"

"When the foeman bears his steel--Taran Tarah...!"

The Sargeant Before Showtime

Fergus and Norah were in their first stage play ever this weekend: two performances of the "Pirates of Penzance." Here, the boy waits for showtime at performance number two. They were both splendid, and had a great time, despite an intense couple of days leading up to the shows.

He's very focused before a show. THE METHOD, you know.

Pick Four! Mix or Match! (Meat!)

Pick Four! Mix or Match! (Meat!)
Originally uploaded by baseballpajamas

Coming soon to a grocery store near you.

Today's Alchemical Notes

1. 1. We hold these truths to be self-evident: Heady Topper IPA at the Alchemist is worth the drive.
   
2. Shawnee's house on Rt 2 is hard to find, despite the supposedly big sign advertising MANURE.
3. Gilbert and Sullivan are the man, even if the riff on "orphan" and "often" goes on far too long (see Penzance). "Men who stop at nothing will soon be here!"
   
4. Spring peepers and those invisible birds who make the "woo woo" mate-with-me sounds with their wings on April 18 are surely signs that spring has sprung.
5. Cap'n Crunch with 2% milk is heavenly at first. But the second bowl is making me wonder who is in control--me or the Cap'n.
   

Dragon Boat Festival?

This just in: Apparently I've agreed to take part in this year's Dragon Boat Festival on Lake Champlain, as part of a team supporting Camp Ta-Kum-Ta, a summer camp for kids who have or have had cancer. It's a great effing thing. Against all expectations Fergus went last year, and loved it, and grew up like you wouldn't believe. I will always be grateful to Camp Ta-Kum-Ta (the name of which comes from a kid with cancer who wanted a summer camp that he could attend, a "Camp To Come To").

Frankly, I don't know what a Dragon Boat Festival is, except that paddles are involved. And that I have to raise $10/apiece from 7 people. And that Camp Ta-Kum-Ta is the Bomb.

ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE 7 PEOPLE?

Just wondering.

Roll Away the Stone

Boulder Conquerors
Originally uploaded by baseballpajamas

A little underage bouldering, just off I-89 in New Hampshire, Easter evening (on the way home from MA).

Poptarts and Pajamas Before the Liquor Store Opens

Easter-eve, 2009, 8:50AM, New Hampshire State Liquor Store, southbound rest area on I-93, kids still in pajamas after three hours of driving (already).

I've never been the first one in a liquor store before. But with children in pajamas? Oh the humanity.

Happy Easter!
Originally uploaded by baseballpajamas

April in Vermont

Bad Commute
Originally uploaded by baseballpajamas

Everything was fine, and then suddenly there were 6 or 7 accidents in a two-mile stretch of Interstate 89....

Memory Pebbled

Rainier: Summit Day
Originally uploaded by baseballpajamas

I've been thinking about this trip lately.

I took this shot on the way down from the Rainier summit. It looks almost surreal to me now. Did we really do that climb?

Mom--Tracker

Vermonter John Irving Weighs In

(Letter from John Irving to Edmund White)

Dear Edmund:

It's interesting that, as you and I are comparing our calendars to see when we might get together in Vermont -- and while we are both engaged in overseeing the editing and copy-editing phase of our new books -- my fellow Vermonters are deciding the fate of a gay marriage bill, which I very much support, and which has been supported by the Vermont State Senate (by a wide margin).

Some years ago, I was an outspoken opponent of my fellow Democrat, Sen. Peter Shumlin -- then and now, the President of the Vermont Senate -- on an issue having nothing to do with gay marriage. (It was a tax issue, and a school issue, called Act 60, and the disagreement between Sen. Shumlin and myself was very public. It was unfortunate, too, because we were friends -- formerly neighbors in Putney --and the issue was very divisive.) Not so now, when Sen. Shumlin and I are allies on the gay marriage issue; Peter Shumlin's statements in support of gay marriage have been clear, fair, and admirable -- and I've told him so. Gay rights have long been the "new" -- as we both know, truly not so new -- civil rights. It is heartening to see that the Vermont Senate thinks so.

I don't need to tell you that there are many people outside Vermont who are watching to see what my home state does about the S.115 legislation; I believe that gays, and all Americans committed to equality, are looking hopefully at Vermont right now. As a country, don't we lag behind Europe and Canada on the acceptance of gay people? I am proud of the Vermont Senate for passing this bill by such a commanding margin.

But wait a minute; I mustn't overlook our governor, Jim Douglas (R.). Around the state, I hear rumors that our governor has national ambitions of a conservative kind. Indeed, Gov. Douglas's threatened veto of this important and timely legislation puts him on the wrong side of history; people opposed to gay marriage will soon belong among such dinosaurs as those who stood in opposition to African-Americans in Martin Luther King's time, or those other dinosaurs who once denied equal rights for women. (I know you know about my support of abortion rights -- made clear enough in "The Cider House Rules," not only in my novel but in the film I adapted from that book. Well, I feel no less strongly about my support of gay rights.)

My question for Gov. Douglas is: Why should it matter to straight couples if gay couples want to be married? How insecure must heterosexuals be in order to feel threatened by gay marriage? Civil unions aren't good enough -- they're not equal enough! Is Gov. Douglas so deaf to history that he cannot hear the most obvious and painful echoes? To say that civil unions suffice, or that they're good enough for gay people -- in lieu of marriage -- is akin to telling black people where to sit on the bus, or that they must use separate toilets.

And when people lamely say that marriage was "intended" to be between a man and a woman, we need to remind these unquestioning souls that our founding fathers "intended" a separation between church and state, about which our constitution is very clear. By whom (and back when) was marriage "intended" to be between a man and a woman? That isn't an argument; that is religious dogma, and it has no place in legislation, which is (or should be) about equal justice for all. Heterosexuals are not hurt by gay marriage; to not allow gays to be married hurts gays.

By passing S.115 into law in our state, Vermont will take leadership of an issue that has embarrassed our country in the eyes of the world; by vetoing S.115, Gov. Douglas will demonstrate that he is opposed to equal rights for all. Gov. Douglas should be encouraged to stand on the right side of history, and not stand instead in history's way. But, as I said, the governor may have his own political agenda; he may be thinking beyond Vermont -- possibly, he's imagining what Gov. Palin would do!

Gov. Douglas's explanation of his threatened veto is bizarre. He says the legislature shouldn't be troubled by this distraction right now; he says we have more important issues to tackle -- namely, the economy. Is he just insensitive to the feelings of gay people, or is he ducking the issue -- or both? Is he really saying that gay rights are light fare in comparison to the more serious business of the legislature? As for labeling the gay marriage bill a distraction, the governor's announced intention to veto the bill is what's causing the distraction!

Vermont Senator Dick McCormack (D.) said in today's Rutland Herald that the governor's stated reason for his veto "is based on a complete misrepresentation of the legislative process, and it expresses a smug disrespect for a class of his fellow humans." (I think you and I would agree with that.)

I've sent emails to certain members of the Vermont House of Representatives -- not just thank-you notes to some of my fellow Democrats, but also heartfelt thank-yous and encouragements to a couple of Republicans who support gay marriage. (Among them, my local Dorset member of the House of Representatives, the only Republican I have voted for in recent history. Patti Komline has said she will vote in support of gay marriage and to over-rule the governor's veto of the S.115 legislation; to her I gave the biggest thanks, because I know she must be taking some heat from her fellow Republicans -- if not from Gov. Douglas himself.)

It's discouraging, isn't it, how long certain fights endure? I remember how some of my friends in the abortion rights battle thought the issue was over in '73, with Roe v. Wade; I doubted it -- mere wishful thinking, as it turned out. And now this gay marriage business. Sometimes it feels that the gay rights battles are only beginning -- which is true in one sense, though the struggle itself has been going on forever; this one will continue to be fought long after our lifetimes, you would probably agree.

Well, on that depressing note -- I hope to see you soon!

Fondly,
John

(Published by Towle Road)

Thurs House Vote 95 - 52

More debate today. Final vote today? 100 votes in favor needed to override Gov. Dumbass' promise to veto. Excerpts from the House Record for yesterday (April 2) below. The Old-Fashioned-Paranoid-Crankypants award goes to Duncan Kilmartin of the Northeast Kingdom.
_____________________________________

Rep. Gilbert of Fairfax explained his vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
Simply because I, as an individual believe that marriage is a sacrament and chose to be married within a church, does not mean that everyone must have the same beliefs. Others may choose a civil marriage ceremony, a civil union, a different church, or nothing at all. These alternatives have absolutely no affect on my marriage, my faith, or my individual commitment to my wife and family. They cost me nothing. The choice to marry is a public declaration of a personal choice made by a couple that loves and is committed to care for each other. As a person, I cannot deny the rights to others that I claim for myself. As a legislator, I must uphold the Vermont and U.S. Constitutions and my Oath of Office. I support this bill .”

Rep. Grad of Moretown explained her vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
I vote yes for S. 115. As a member of your House Judiciary committee my goal is to promote justice for all Vermonters so they may attain equal access rights, benefits and privileges under the law. Through testimony on this bill I learned that civil unions does not do this but creates a separate status for same sex couples and their children who are often discriminated against, stigmatized and marginalized. Studies show that there is no credible scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation, but instead is related to parenting styles.

In voting for this bill I vote for Vermont same-sex families and their children with the hope to begin to repair the wounds of discrimination they suffer and give all Vermont children a more tolerant world in which to grow.”

Rep. Audette of South Burlington explained his vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
I voted no but I respect people for who they are and not their sexual orientation.”

Rep. Clarkson of Woodstock explained her vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
I vote yes in support of a bill that furthers the cause of equality in Vermont and because anything that promotes love and commitment is wonderful and further promotes the common good.”

Rep. Kilmartin of Newport City explained his vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
Marriage in all cultures throughout recorded history has been between a man and a woman and for good and indisputable reasons. There is a male father and female mother who carry the child to term. To give the title to same-sex couples does nothing but introduce confusion and chaos into the very nature of marriage and the family. The way the bill is structured, it denies individuals and mothers and fathers the exercise and practice their sincerely held beliefs and denies them their Constitutional rights to raise their own children according to the dictates of their conscience. The bill cleverly sets up clergymen and religious institutions as those entitled to freedom of conscience while intentionally denying the individual citizens their constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

Rep. Koch of Barre Town explained his vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
Due to the necessity of attending the wake of a close friend back home, the member from Vernon has asked me to note for the record that she would have voted no on this question.”

Rep. Ram of Burlington explained her vote as follows
“Mr. Speaker:
To say that Civil Unions offered the same rights as marriage is nothing less than saying once upon a time there are two drinking fountains that both dispense the same water. I vote yes to lift this final weight of off the shoulders of your otherwise free society.”

Rep. Turner of Milton explained his vote as follows
“Mr. Speaker:
Voting “no” tonight on this bill was a very difficult decision for me. Several of my family members and close friends are gay and I fully support their rights under the Civil Union laws of our state. I believe in and have performed many Civil Unions in the past. However, I just could not come to terms with redefining the term marriage. I fully respect the proponents position of this legislation and can understand and will respect my position on this issue. Thank you.”

Rep.Wheeler of Derby explained his vote as follows
“Mr. Speaker:
I found myself wishing when I came into this debate I had strong opinions one way or another, but I didn’t. When I was a newspaper reporter covering the Civil Union debates it was far easier for me to know how I would vote on that issue, but probably only because I didn’t have to actually vote. In voting “no” I know that I have disappointed some people including, some dear friends. My vote came after
much talking and listening to people on both sides of the issue. In voting “no”, which a huge percentage of my constituents asked me to do, I hope my gay and lesbian friends and colleagues don’t feel that I threw them under the bus, but on the other hand, I won’t blame them if they do. As a history writer I wonder if I voted on the right or wrong side of history – only time will tell. Will I look back on my vote with disappointment? Only time will tell. I apologize for those who I have disappointed, and I thank everybody for keeping this process civil.”

Rep. Zuckerman of Burlington explains his vote as follows
“Mr. Speaker:
Nine years ago twenty-two members of this body voted for full equality. Today ninety-five members did. In and of itself, that is a huge victory. A huge majority has spoken.”

Adjournment
At nine o'clock and twenty-five minutes in the evening, on motion of Rep. Komline of Dorset, the House adjourned until tomorrow at nine o'clock and thirty minutes in the forenoon.

Pre-Clinic Mentality

Fergus is almost 2 years off-treatment, but as I get ready to take him for a (every-other-month) peedonk visit today I find myself surprised by this mental process: I've been basically weighing the odds of a relapse to decide whether or not Norah should come with us to the clinic or if it's okay to just leave her at school until later.

I'm going to leave her at school.

(UPDATE: And clinic visit went fine. Everyone seems to love Fergus at Pediatric Oncology and--oh--no concerns from the docs. Capped off the afternoon with a late lunch at Al's French Fry....Norah was a little peeved to have missed that part).

Lauren's Crazy Job--A Contest

Yes, I realize that "Keeping the Monkey Awake" sounds like some sort of euphemism, but it more accurately describes one of the stranger jobs that Lauren once had. She was a last minute entry in the "Seven Days" newspaper contest, "What is the craziest thing you did for money?" And it turns out she's one of the finalists.

Cast your vote here in support of Lauren's crazy job history. It's a worthy cause.

So far she is tied for first place with a woman who will regurgitate fish for petty cash.....

Hilarious and Unpredictable: the Social History of Marriage

"Traditional Marriage" has not been the immutable 1-man/1-woman institution that social conservatives insist in their arguments against marriage equality, says E.J. Graff of Brandeis University:

Audio from Vermont Public Radio