Learning more than I wanted to starting out....2/14/09 (and 2/15/09, and 2/16/09...) version

2-16-09: Dictionary.com's word of the day today is:

interminable: seeming to have no end

...quite appropriate to THIS tale!!!

So we have a whole bunch of VHS tapes, mostly kid's movies from when our daughter was young, that take up a lot of space and are in some cases becoming damaged from overuse, so we've decided to convert some of them to DVD. Simple enough, right? You just capture the output of the VCR into the computer and then write it to a DVD, right?

Hmmmmm, well, maybe. Here are the steps I had to go through BEFORE what follows:

1. VCR hookup to the TV/tuner card in the computer (had to find correct dongle)
   
2. Repeatedly crashing Windows Movie Maker and Windows Media Encoder
   
3. No sound in the feed from the VCR (need the RCA cables along with the S-Video cable)
4. Overnight encoding resulting in full disk (didn't realize could set Encoder to a time limit)
   
5. Had to re-encode video with Windows Media Encoder becuase it had no "index"
6. Attempt to use AdobePremier to create DVD. Was able to add "markers," but not able to get Premier to recognize DVD-RW.
   
7. Conversion to AVI (using Premier), with thought of using Nero to create DVD.
   
8. Nero kept saying there was no disk in the drive.
9. Went to Office Depot to get new DVD+Rs thinking maybe the ones I had were corrupt.
   
10. Still, no response from DVD-RW
    
11. Attempted Driver updates - no newer driver (it's using generic Microsoft drivers)
    
12. Firmware flash to change Firmware from BGS4 to BSOY (stock)
13. Attempt to use Lite-On BSOY driver....says it already has latest Lite-On driver
    

Then, I decided to search the Microsoft site for an updated generic driver. I typed "Microsoft atapi driver" into Google. Second on the list was the following:

how to enable 48-bit Logical Block Addressing support for ATAPI ...
Describes Microsoft Windows XP SP1 48-bit Logical Block Addressing (LBA) support ... To determine if you have the latest ATAPI driver, verify that you have ...
support.microsoft.com/kb/303013 - Similar pages -

This was the first I'd heard of "Logical Block Addressing," but I saw the "To determine if you have the latest ATAPI driver," and decided this might give me something useful, so I clicked it.

I read

"This article describes the Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1) 48-bit Logical Block Addressing (LBA) support for ATA Packet Interface (ATAPI) disk drives that can increase the capacity of your hard disk to more than the current 137 gigabyte (GB) limit."

This was a hard drive issue, clearly, and not what I wanted. So I typed "atapi dvd" into the Microsoft search box, and it offered to auto-complete this to "atapi dvd drivers download," so I accepted that. This brought me to an Advanced Search results page, with a few things near the top that didn't look especially relevant, so I searched the results on that page for "dvd." I found this entry on the list:

List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2
(811113) - ... com/?kbid=330232) Debugging cannot debug drivers ... Windows XP Does Not Recognize a DVD-RW Disc: Base ... 816764 (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=816764) ATAPI ...
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113/de

While I've kept my computer updated with the service packs, the "Windows XP Does Not Recognize a DVD-RW Disc" looked very promising, so I followed the link. It brought me to

a list of Microsoft Knowledge Base (KB) articles that describe the fixes and updates that are contained in Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). This article is primarily intended to help IT Professionals and corporate helpdesks to support and maintain a company’s computer system.

If you are running Windows XP SP2 on your home computer, notebook, or small network, and you have questions about Windows XP SP2, please visit the following Microsoft Web site: http://support.microsoft.com/windowsxpsp2

Clearly, Microsoft would prefer if I not pursue this line of inquiry, but I am not one to easily accept that I'm not able to handle the role of an "IT Professional," so I searched the page for "DVD" and found:

818733 (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=818733)

Windows XP Does Not Recognize a DVD-RW Disc

Base operating system

and clicked on the link, taking me to "Windows XP does not recognize a DVD-RW disc". I read under "Symptoms":

When you insert a DVD-RW disc into the DVD drive of a Microsoft Windows XP-based computer, Windows XP does not recognize the disc. For example, you do not see any files on the disc.

YES! My problem exactly. So then I read under "Cause":

"This issue occurs because the Universal Disc Format driver, Udfs.sys, tries to read the DVD-RW disc by using a packet length of 32 blocks instead of by using a packet length of 16 blocks. CD-RW uses a packet length of 32 blocks, but DVD-RW uses a packet length of 16 blocks.

Hmmmm...... This certainly could account for exactly the problem I was having (wouldn't read any DVD, whether commercial, homemade data, or blank. But the resolution offered was to upgrade to the latest service pack, and, as I've said, I keep my computer up-to-date using automatic update. Below that recommendation, however, was a section entitled "Hotfix information," which said that "A supported hotfix is available from Microsoft. However, this hotfix is intended to correct only the problem that is described in this article. Apply this hotfix only to systems that are experiencing this specific problem."

Well, my system was experiencing "the problem that is described", so I followed the link to the hotfix, and got a page with a "Agreement for Microsoft Services," which (of course) I didn't read but accepted, and got to a list of languages available, chose English, entered the required email address and Captcha code, and clicked "Request Hotfix." Soon, it arrived in my inbox.

Mmmmm.....I rubbed my hands. Would this do it?

In the email, there were a bunch of warnings:

This hotfix has not undergone full testing. Therefore, it is intended only for systems or computers that are experiencing the exact problem that is described in the one or more Microsoft Knowledge Base articles that are listed in "KB Article Numbers" field in the table at the end of this e-mail message. If you are not sure whether any special compatibility or installation issues are associated with this hotfix, we encourage you to wait for the next service pack release. The service pack will include a fully tested version of this fix. We understand that it can be difficult to determine whether any compatibility or installation issues are associated with a hotfix. If you want confirmation that this hotfix addresses your specific problem, or if you want to confirm whether any special compatibility or installation issues are associated with this hotfix, support professionals in Customer Support Services can help you with that. [and then some contact information and then this:]

Before you install this hotfix

------------------------------

If you decide to install this hotfix, please note the following items:

Do not deploy a hotfix in a production environment without first testing the hotfix.

Back up the system or the computer that will receive the hotfix before you install the hotfix.

Hmmmmm, I thought. Should I "back up my system"??!?! That seems extreme for this particular solution. However, they seem serious about this. But, what the heck, what could possible go wrong? :-)

So I downloaded the hotfix, ran the self-extractor, typed in the required pasword, and it unzipped some files onto my hard drive:

file:///C:/dump/hotfix.txt

file:///C:/dump/Q818733_WXP_SP2_ia64_ENU.exe

file:///C:/dump/Q818733_WXP_SP2_ia64_ENU_Symbols.exe

Should I read the text file? Well, since there are two executables here, I guess I should. Besides some legal stuff ("this is provided As-Is, etc), it said, under "Installation Instructions":

1. If this hotfix was delivered with hfx.exe then it can be installed by running hfx.exe from the appropriate platform directory.

Um, but it wasn't. There's no "hfx.exe" file. Just those two executables. Hmmm....

This made me nervous. I decided to do a little further investigation.

So I typed "Uniform Disc Format Driver packet length dvd" into Google. There were a bunch of Linux-related things talking about the very problem I was having, but nothing Windows-related on the first page. So I added "udfs.sys" to the search, and found about half-way down the page:

[SOLVED] Can't write DVD - Ubuntu Forum

10 posts - Last post: Dec 19, 2007

My DVD drive doesn't show up. Disc name is greyed out, ... system> ... /dev/hda /media/cdrom0 udf,iso9660 user,noauto,exec 0 0 ... [ 15.754365] Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.20 .... FORMAT allocaion length isn't sane or at the CLI I get: ...
ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=64425

...so I followed that link. It deals with Linux, again. The posts are mostly one guy talking to himself. The final post is:

"I solved the problem. I swapped the DVD player out with another one and it works. Probably was some sort of firmware issue but I don't know why."

Hmmmm.....I'm beginning to think that isn't such a bad idea. However, I do have this hotfix that I could run. Thinking maybe I should just find out a little bit more, I typed "Q818733_WXP_SP2_ia64_ENU.exe" into Google.

Nothing.

How about, "udfs.sys windows dvd"? A few entries down, I find this:

[PDF]Re: windows wont recognize dvd ramFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
replaced the original udfs.sys and cdfs.sys. (C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers &. C:\

WINDOWS\ServicePackFiles\i386) with. Re: windows wont recognize dvd ram ...
www.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/WinXP/microsoft.public.windowsxp.video/2006-08/msg00308.pdf

Hey, it mentions the hotfix!!!

I also was checking into the
udfs.sys file that may
have
caused this problem. Im not completely sure
if this HotFix from
microsoft
is the cure. I'll check back after I get the
model number and let you
konw
the outcome.

Towards the bottom of the document, I found this:

I recently bought a Toshiba RD−XS24 DVD−Recorder. It
has a huge HDD but
I'm mainly interested in transfering the recorded videos to
my
computer, so I started recording on DVD−RW and
DVD−RAM discs in VR
mode, but my system (Windows XP SP1) wouldn't "see"
anything at all.
Microsoft has a HotFix (KB818733), but there is no direct
dowload, so I
looked for the files udfs.sys and cdfs.sys on the Internet and
finally
found them on eDonkey (version 5.1.2600.2180 for both of
them). I
replaced the original udfs.sys and cdfs.sys
(C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers &
C:\WINDOWS\ServicePackFiles\i386) with
the ones I dowloaded and the problem was immediately
solved. Now, my
system sees the VRO (mpeg−2) video files and I can copy
them easily.
When replacing the .sys files Windows will warn you against
doing so,
but ignore the warning (you should keep the originals
renamed just in
case something goes wrong).

WOW! This is another solution! Do I get the sys files from the 'net and replace them, or do I do the hotfix?

I needed to know the versions of the drivers. So I fired up the control panel and went into the "system" applet and then into Hardware and then to the Device Manager, and for some reason my DVD-RW was MISSING from the list. Hmmmmm......

I'm thinking to myself, maybe there's something unstable in the operating system....maybe I should just reboot my computer, and this problem will be solved?

...to be continued.....

So I rebooted, and the DVD-RW drive returned to the list. I looked at the properties, driver, details, and got a list of drivers, but no udfs.sys listed there. So I looked in My Computer under Windows/system32/drivers and found usfs.sys, version 5.1.2600.5512 and cdfs.sys, same version number, both created 4/13/2005. In other words, when Windows XP Media Center edition was first installed on my gateway. These versions are HIGHER than the "new" ones listed in the PDF page mentioned just above. But maybe I do need to replace them?

Or do that hotfix?

Before going further, I decided to test the DVD-RW again by putting a full DVD data disk in it. Again, no response.

I decided to go to eDonkey.com to find out if there are newer versions of the udfs.sys or cdfs.sys files. Turns out, it's a peer-to-peer file sharing system similar to Limewire, and most users use a client called eMule, available at http://www.emule-project.net/. I didn't really want to get into that, so (for now), gave up that approach.

Time to do the hotfix, I guess.

...to be continued.....

So I "did" the hotfix. I wasn't entirely sure how to do it, so I just ran the first *.exe file. Something flashed on the screen that I couldn't read....then I get this message:


Hmmmm..... not very reassuring.

So I tried opening a Command window (Start....Run...."command") and running it from there:


Same exact error. However, I notice that behind that error message is another little pop-up window:

What the heck? "o:\..."? I have a drive o. It's an external hard drive. I look there, and sure enough, there's a directory there, O:\9a56ff9f258d505a5f3c30. In that directory are a few files, including the offending xpsp1hfm.exe:


I wonder if I should run it.

Why not? (At this point, I'm just throwing stuff up on the wall.) So I click "okay" on the error message, and then switch back to the window showing that odd directory on O:.

Strange! The contents are gone, and in their place is this:


Hmmmm..... So I follow the shortcut, and it takes me right back to the same place:


Damn, that's odd!!! The files were there just a moment ago. Now it's a circular shortcut reference!!!

This is getting bizarre.

I decide to run the executable again, but don't click the "ok" on the error message. There's a new directory in O: now, called O:\75e7fb32d55e3dbbabde5f2c2792. It has the files in it.

I wonder if I click "Ok" will THIS directory now have a circular shortcut in it?

I decide not to find out (yet), and run the xpsp1hfm.exe. Here goes nothin'!

And, in fact, I get another error:


Will it run in a command window? (They certainly don't make this easy!!!) When I click "ok", the directory is now gone. I realize that the circular shortcut above must have been something *I* created, preventing the directory from being erased.

So what do I do now? I decide that maybe the file got corrupted during the download process, and go back to the email and download and extract it again.

Same thing. Ugh.

So I think it's time to try a different tack. I had read somewhere that someone with a similar problem had solved it by switching the DVD-RW and DVD-ROM drives so that the latter is the master and the former is the slave drive. So I shut my computer down and open it up, and switch the drives. (They are both set as "Cable Select," so I simply switch their position and reattach the cable so that their roles are switched. Then I restart and make sure that the "Master/Slave" roles are switched. Yes. But no, the DVD-RW still doesn't read DVDs.

I am about to give up. I could just buy a new DVD-RW drive and it would probably work fine. Maybe this one is just defective?

I notice in the Control Panel (when I check to make sure the roles are switched) that device 1 (the DVD-RW, now the "slave") has an odd indicator:


Notice under "Current Transfer Mode," it says "Not Applicable"? What the heck does THAT mean? Clearly, there's something going on with that drive.

Just to be sure, I check on my wife's computer to see what that setting says on hers. Both drives are listed as "Ultra DMA Mode 2."

Hmmmm.... this seems to be the first indication that my COMPUTER is aware that there might be an issue with the DVD-RW. Just to be sure, I check to make sure it still can read CDs (in case what happened when I switched them is it got disabled). It works to read CDs.

Time to investigate DMA!! (Understand why this post it titled "Learning more than I wanted to starting out"?)

...to be continued...

Driving Uphill (in Chicago)

(Note: updated 2-6-09)

The university where I work, National-Louis University, has a bunch of campuses. In Chicagoland, there's downtown (where my office is), Wheeling (where the primary offices of the National College of Education are), North Shore (which is in Skokie), Lisle, and Elgin. (There are also campuses in Wisconsin (Beloit and Milwaukee) and Tampa Florida, and one in Poland. The one in McLean Virginia was recently closed. )

The multiple campuses in Chicagoland (and the fact that we offer the Technology in Education program on three of them, and have meetings at various times on all of them) mean that I'm doing a lot of driving these days. I've put almost 80,000 miles on my minivan since I bought it in 2004. And NONE of that is commuting to my office, where, unfortunately, I don't get to spend a lot of time. On any given day, I might be driving to Wheeling, Lisle, Skokie, or a combination of two of those. Anyway, all of this driving is a real drag, although since I've discovered how to use my laptop to read me student papers and other things I have to read, it's less of a drag than it used to be.

When I'm not listening to something interesting--especially when I'm driving during rush hour--I have a lot of time to think. This is often a good thing. I also look at the "scenery." I use this term advisedly, because much of what one can see from the expressways is hardly scenic: grungy roads, light (and some heavy) industrial buildings, (way too many) billboards. There are a few scenic highlights that make it less deadly than it could be: the lake, the skyline from various directions and at various times of day, the Chicago River and associated canals, all kinds of railroads. There isn't a whole heck of a lot of terrain to look at (what with Chicago being pretty flat and all), but even though I've lived in Chicago for most of the past 20 years, I still don't tire of the bustle of the city, and occasionally find myself fascinated with what's visible out the car window.


Well, one thing that has caught my attention numerous times is that when I'm driving outbound on the Kennedy Expressway (headed toward our Wheeling or North Shore campuses), there is this very long, slow grade up from the city. (Or, driving the other way, a long grade down to the city.) From near the "top" of this hill (which is close to what they call the "Junction" where the Kennedy and Edens expressways come together, one gets a pretty good view of the city; it certainly looks like one is looking down at it. I've often wondered whether this grade is mostly a matter of the expressway going from UNDER street level to OVER street level, or if there was something in the underlying topography that contributes to the hill.

Knowing a little bit about Chicago's history had added to my curiosity. I know that the city was originally mostly a swamp. Before it was settled by the white man, the Indians used to travel around the area on a few well-worn footpaths that followed several ridges in the area. These ridges were formed quite a long time ago by the receding shoreline of Lake Michigan. This map from the Encyclopedia of Chicago shows the original shoreline of the lake (shaded area is the lake 10,000 years ago):


A little known fact is that just west of Chicago is a subcontinental divide. Water to the east of that divide flows eastward down the Chicago River to Lake Michigan, and water to the west of it flows down the Desplaines, Fox, and Illinois Rivers to the Mississipi River. It was that divide that was originally called the Chicago Portage and which was cut by the Illinois and Michigan Canal in 1848. In 1900, the Chicago River was reversed and forced to empty into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal so that the waters of Lake Michigan (used as drinking water by millions of people) wouldn't get polluted from the sewage that made up the primary volume of water in the Chicago River. "The project involved the construction of a 28-mile channel through a glacial moraine and bedrock ridge." (source). According to The Chicagoist, this ridge was 8 feet high. Not quote enough, I don't think, to account for the upgrade on the Kennedy.

The original Indian footpaths along the ridges around Chicago have been immortalized in a few major roads around the area:

the major ancient Indian trails in and around Chicago, as well as additional trails that developed before 1830, are still visible on modern road maps, often as diagonal streets: Lincoln Avenue, Clark Street, Ogden Avenue, Archer Avenue, and Vincennes Avenue. With the coming of Europeans, the trails first became bridle paths, then roads for wagons, then stage and mail routes. For information on individual major trails in the area, see entries under Sauk (Sac) Trail, Vincennes Trail, Hubbard Trace, Calumet-Tolleston Beach Trail, Trail Creek Trail, Lake Shore Trail, Green Bay Trail, Portage Trail, Lake Trail, Cottage Grove Trail, Archer Trail (Old Chicago Trail), Berry Point Trail, and the Fort Dearborn-Detroit Road. [from Early Chicago: A Compendium of the Early History of Chicago to the Year 1835]

One of those trails was the "Northwest Trail." In this image, a map of Chicago from 1833, you can see the beginning of the Northwest Trail by the red asterisk:


That "Northwest Trail" became the basis for a long series of transportation developments. First, it became Milwaukee Avenue. Then,

In 1849, the Northwestern Plank Road was constructed on Milwaukee Ave. to Oak Ridge at what is now Irving Park Blvd.; thence to Dutchman's Point (now Niles); and finally to Wheeling. The Western Plank Road was built westerly from Oak Ridge to Bloomingdale in DuPage County and thence to Elgin. [source]

[Note: I have come to the conclusion that the quote above is in error; the Northwestern Plank Road wasn't built to Oak Ridge, which is now Oak Park. Rather, it was built to what would now be called Irving Park.]

The following map (Chicago Historical Society) shows the principal transportation routes in Chicago from 1852 (modern roads are in red).You can see how the "Northwest Trail" has become the "Northwestern Plank Road," (it's labeled only "Plank Road" on the map) leading toward an important junction (called "Oak Ridge" in the quote just above), where the "Western Plank Road" heads to the West, the "Milwaukee and Chicago Road" heads northwest, and the modern "Chicago-Waukegan Mil. Road" (I'm guessing "Mil" is an abbreviation for Milwaukee) heads north. Just to the northwest of that junction, "Higgin's Road" heads more to the west.


That spot where the Western Plank Road separates off from the Northwestern Plank Road is the modern-day intersection of Irving Park Rd., Milwaukee Avenue, and Cicero Avenue (so-called "Six Points).

Just to the Northwest of Six Points, Higgin's Road (now Higgins Road) and "Rand Road" (now called the Northwest Highway inside the Chicago city limits and Rand Road outside the city) branch off in what is now the neighborhood of Jefferson Park. Jefferson Park was originally its own town, until it joined Chicago in 1889. Interestingly, the primary reason that a town formed there was because a family had a farm along Milwaukee Avenue that had a reliable well, so people settled near the well. (For more about the history of Jefferson Park, click here.)

In 1854 [source], the so-called "Northwest Railway" was built along the Chicago River, running between he two diagonal streets, Milwaukee Ave. and Elston Ave, resulting in a population boom in Jefferson Park. The Northwest Railway (officially the "Chicago and St. Paul Rail Road") paralleled Avondale Avenue, another diagonal street. This rail line eventually became part of the Chicago, St. Paul and Fond du Lac Railroad, which was later part of the Galena and Chicago Union Railway and today is part of Chicago and North Western Railway. You can see this railroad as the diagonal line going from Chicago up and to the left in this detail from an 1855 map from American Memory. (The more vertical line is the Chicago and Milwaukee Rail Road, which eventually became another branch of the Chicago and Northwestern):

Later (1873), the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad was built, also leaving from the west side of the river downtown, at first in a more westerly direction, then turning north, intersecting with the Northwestern Line in Jefferson Park. This detail map is from the Encyclopedia of Chicago:

Notice that this map labels the area near the railroad intersection as "Mayfair." Mayfair was originally the village of Montrose, and was part of Jefferson Park when it was annexed by Chicago. This detail from an interactive map at wildonions.org shows the relationship among these various neighborhoods:

It helps to recognize that the southern border of Mayfair on this map is Irving Park Avenue and the western boarder at first follows the tracks of the former Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific and then follows Cicero Avenue. The prominent diagonal white line is the Northwest Expressway (now the Kennedy Expressway). (Remember the Kennedy Expressway? That's what this post is about!).

In 1927, the Chicago Plan Commission laid out a series of limited-access highways that included the current route of the Kennedy Expressway, but the bond issue for the plan was defeated in 1928 [source The expressway was finally built in the 1950s, opening on November 5, 1960, following the tracks of the Northwest Railway and Avondale Avenue (now only existing for short segments along the expressway). It was renamed the Kennedy Expressway on November 29, 1963 in honor of the slain president. For much of its length, the Blue Line of the Chicago Transit Authority, built in 1984, runs along its median. The Northwest Railway runs on the east side ofthe expressway until just below Addison Street, when it crosses over via a massive bridge to the west side, where it continues until both the Kennedy Expressway and the railway cross Milwaukee Avenue just west of Long Ave.

(Actually, it's really the other way around. The railroad track is quite straight. It's the Kennedy that crosses from one side of the tracks to the other, doing a little jog to the left before it cuts right, as you can see in this image from Google Earth:)


So, back to the ascent on the Kennedy. As the road passes through downtown, it runs under all of the streets, going through an area between Lake Street and Ohio streets known as Hubbard's Cave:

You can see Hubbard's cave from above in this image from Google Earth:

Fulton Street crosses east-west near the bottom of this image, and Hubbard Street crosses it near the top. (Notice also, if you look carefully, that there is a railroad track running right next to Hubbard Street. That's the original route of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad, built in 1872-73, mentioned above. In the upper right of the image, you can also see another track that curves up toward the north. That's the Northwest Railway built in 1854.)

One would expect that the elevation of the Kennedy at this point (since it's under all the streets) would be lower than the elevation of downtown Chicago. So, not surprisingly, when the Kennedy emerges from Hubbard's Cave, there is a slight upgrade, which you can sort of see in this photo from my camera phone. (Most of the following photos were taken while driving north on the Kennedy's reversible express lanes.)

If you look at the Google Earth image of this section, you can see that the Kennedy indeed rises from going BELOW Chicago Avenue and Milwaukee Avenue (the diagonal street here), to going OVER Division Street.


This rise can thus be explained solely on the basis of the logistics of the road. Indeed, for the next few miles, until the road crosses Addison Street, it rises and falls to go over each major street, but more or less stays level. At the jog (described above), the Blue Line emerges from its underground tunnel and enters the Kennedy's median.


That is, it stays level until after Addison Street. In the photo above, you can see that the road begins to rise more consistently than it had before.


This detail of the above photo shows this rise more clearly. A retaining wall (outlined in red) shows how the expressway is now rising to meet the level of the ground. Behind the retaining wall is a billboard that is at the Corner of Irving Park and Pulaski. You can also see a Blue Line train coming down the hill:


In this photo, taken immediately after the one above, you can see the ground to the left (covered in snow), above the level of the road:
This Google Earth image is taken from almost the exact same point, at Waveland and North Ridgeway:


(UPDATE 2-6-09: I looked at this section again today when I was driving to and from Skokie. I've changed my mind about the rise that you can see in the photographs above. The Kennedy has to go DOWN in order to go UNDER the Northwest Railway just south of Addison, at this trestle:

It can actually be seen to be going down in the jog before it goes under the railroad. So the rise we see afterwards in the retaining wall is--in part--a recovery to above street level from that descent.)

The only indication on the Google Earth views that there is a rise in the land here is that the diagonal street just to the east of the expressway between Addison and Irving Park is called "N. Parkview Terrace." One finds no mention of a hill, or rise in the land, in any of the Wikipedia articles about the Irving Park neighborhood or its subdivisions. However, one article does say that the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 was watched from several of the cupolas on area homes, vaguely indicating that there might be a particularly good view from the area.

The top of the rise on the Kennedy is just before the end of the express lanes, about a quarter-mile south of the junction with the Edens, at about Berteau Avenue, as you can see here. Part of this last little bit of rise is because the ramp from the express lanes to the northbound (officially, we've been traveling "west" on I-90) passes over the Blue Line:


After leaving the express lanes, the expressway definitely has a downward trend, as it goes under Montrose Avenue, as you can see in this photo:

Then, the expressway enters a very complex area where it merges with the Edens and crosses under the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Rail Road. (You can see the junction with the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad just to the west of the junction of the Kennedy and Edens expressways.)

Once the Kennedy emerges from the junction, it trends upward again as it approaches Lawrence Avenue:

So, you might be asking yourself, why didn't I simply get a topological map to see whether the upward trend of the road is actually the result of a rise in elevation? Well, I did. However, it wasn't as easy as I imagined it would be. Most maps of Chicago have no indication of topography. And those that do are incredibly hard to decipher because of all the other stuff on the map.

I found this 1901 map with topographical lines on the historical maps site of the University of Illinois at Chicago. You can plainly see the topographical lines in the upper part of the map where the Chicago River veers westward. (The map indicates "Mayfair" just above the intersection of the railroads.) However, the lines are very hard to see in those areas of the map where there are a lot of streets.


The UIC web site offers a MrSID zooming function that lets you get very close in to see the details of their maps.


But it's still very hard to see the contour lines. So I used Photoshop to zoom in even closer on this map, and traced the contour lines that I could see with the brush tool:

According to the information given about the map, the contour lines are every five feet. So remembering that the Kennedy parallels the Chicago and North Western Railroad, starting at the lower right and moving to the upper left, four lines are crossed, meaning that the ground level rises at least 20 feet on this map (which roughly covers Diversey to Montrose.

I was able to find a more contemporary map at trails.com (for members only...I signed up for a free a trial subscription for a few minutes), but since the topological features of the land shouldn't really change much over the years, and in fact the contour lines were even harder to see, this wasn't a whole lot of help.

However, Trails.com do have an interactive map feature that lets you point to a spot on the map and get the elevation (above sea level) for that spot. Here's what I found:

• The elevation of Chicago at the lakefront is 591 feet above sea level.
• The elevation at Belmont and the Kennedy is also 591. So there is no appreciable rise between downtown and Belmont, as I had suspected.
• The elevation at Irving Park and the Kennedy is 604.
• The elevation at the junction of the Kennedy with the Edens, it is 614.

This confirms what I found with the contour lines. The difference in elevation between Belmont (591) and the junction (614) is 23 feet.

Interestingly, as one goes further west, one finds even more elevation increases. The elevation at the Kennedy and Austin is 623 feet, and at Harlem, near an area called Harwood Heights, it's 656 feet.

So Chicago ain't flat, people, despite what it may seem. And in those minor rises in the land, barely perceptible to those who travel around the city on a daily basis but discernible with the help of technology, one can see the outlines of geologic history.

• For more about Chicago-area topography, click here.
• Lots of maps of early Chicago exist and can be found on the web. A good list is at maphistory.info. Some of the best, which are zoomable, can be found here.

Unfettered Joy

"I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds, understanding that each possessed its own language and customs and structures of meaning, convinced that with a bit of translation on my part the two worlds would eventually cohere." (Barack Obama; Dreams From My Father; 1995)

I find this particular aspect of Barack Obama's character especially compelling. Like many of my friends and professional colleagues...although not all, I see truth as socially constructed--perspectival and pragmatic--and find myself considerably impatient with people who believe that their own view of the truth is intrinsically superior to another equally-functional truth. The awareness of the reality that truth reflects experience as much as it reflects exterior "reality"--a major deconstruction of positivism that is also known as the hermeneutic circle--is, to my mind, the primary achievement of education. Educated people--like Barack Obama--understand that truth-seeking requires an openness to the way that reality is seen by others--and a reluctance to dismiss the statements of others as wrong or false based solely on the fact that those statements are different from one's own. Such an awareness takes time to develop--it is metaphysically counterintuitive and undercuts the traditions and habits of individuals and particular social groups. It requires a rejection of the tribal instinct that leads humans to distrust strangers, an further evolution of consciousness that has taken the species many millenia to achieve and which is clearly still beyond the grasp of many in our country and abroad. It seems especially difficult for people who achieve or inherit financial wealth to accept, for it requires an acceptance that such success may reflect the luck of the situational draw as much as it reflects one's ability or merit.

If it were easy for humans to adopt the perspective of others--if empathy with all humans regardless of situation were instinctual rather than aquired--if following the golden rule were easy rather than an enormous challenge--we wouldn't be constantly at war with one another, whether in the streets of Chicago or in the middle east.

---

(Chicago Tribune, 1-19-09) WASHINGTON — A celebration of democracy quickly became an Obama family sing-along as the future first family danced, sang and channeled their inner Otis Day on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday.

The two-hour "We Are One" concert offered the family several moments of unfettered joy, whether it was Michelle Obama's delight at hearing Stevie Wonder sing or President-elect Barack Obama's attempt to teach his young daughters the "American Pie" chorus. The typically reserved Malia Obama even laughingly complied as her father tried to do the bump with her at one point....

As the entire National Mall danced to Garth Brooks' rendition of "Shout!" Barack and Michelle Obama showed their daughters how to do the dance made famous in "Animal House." Even the president-elect's mother-in-law, the stoic Marian Robinson, threw her hands in the air and laughed.

When Wonder appeared on stage a few moments later and played the opening chords of "Higher Ground," Michelle Obama jumped to her feet and motioned for her family to do the same. Soon the entire Obama clan was jamming to the 1970s funk song.

---

It brings me great happiness to see Barack and his family enjoying themselves as he takes on one of the most difficult jobs in the world. While I do not envy them the responsibilities or loss of privacy that comes as they ascend precipitously to the heights of celebrity, I do empathize with the tremendous enthusiasm of so many here in Chicago and around the world at the possibilities this represents. The celebrations in Washington--while certainly scripted to some extent and caught in the nets of spinmeisters and image consultants--are, for many, truly celebratory: an occasion on which to focus on possibilities rather than pessimistic realities.

(Chicago Tribune 1-19-09)"...Bono, the Irishman and lead singer of U2, injected the only seemingly unrehearsed political note to the day. Just after Obama's wife, Michelle, blew him a kiss, he said the election of Obama represented "not just an American dream — also an Irish dream, a European dream, African dream, Israeli dream and also a Palestinian dream."

Many Americans--especially those who preferred John McCain's (or even George W. Bush's) fixation on national defense--can't understand the exuberance of Europeans for Obama--and dismiss African-Americans' pride as merely another instance of jingoism or even racism. But these cynical Americans are missing something vital and sacred: the real power of shared hope and the belief in the possibility of transformed human affairs in a global community. They are missing the importance of these events--the many references to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., for example--as potent symbols of this possibility. Their "realism" has become a barrier to the idealism that could flow from their deepest desires, if they could only give themselves permission to dream.

Seeing the Obama family relishing these moments provides--for me--an opportunity to project my own dreams onto them. Certainly these dreams will not be easily realized, and these people upon whom I project those dreams are just people--mere mortals thrust into the center of the world's attention by the exigencies of time and place as much as by their own strivings--but I don't really care right now. Most of all, I am allowing myself a few days of shared joy--with the Obamas and with the entire world--and allowing myself to believe in our shared dreams--in the hope that if enough of us do believe, reality itself may be transformed.

(Chicago Tribune, 1-19-09)"In the course of our history, only a handful of generations have been asked to confront challenges as serious as the ones we face right now," Obama said. "But despite all of this—despite the enormity of the task that lies ahead—I stand here today as hopeful as ever that the United States of America will endure, that the dream of our founders will live on in our time... For in these monuments are chiseled those unlikely stories that affirm our unyielding faith — a faith that anything is possible in America."

Philosophical Issues Related to Technology in Education: A Ground Map (Part B)

A couple of months ago, I posted part A of Technology in Education: A Ground Map. In that post, I focused on definitional issues related to "technology," and touched on some ways in which the definition of technology reflects current realities in schools and people's values about what's important in education. In this Part, I want to lay out a general outline of what I see as the major philosophical issues related to technology in education.

I see the following six major categories of philosophical issues related to technology in education:

• Definitional (discussed in Part A)
  
• Epistemological
  
  • what is knowledge
    
  • ways of representing knowledge
    
  • disciplines/interdisciplinary issues
    
  • what is important enough to be taught
    
  • what is deemed unimportant to schooling but is valued by students
    
  • tacit knowledge
    
• Psychological
  
  • Learning theories related to technology
    
  • Behaviorism
    
  • Constructivism
    
  • Social constructivism
    
  • Gaming and education
    
  • Cognitive theories
    
  • Artificial intelligence
    
  • Human-computer interaction
    
  • Issues of attention
    
• Pedagogical
  
  • Technology and standards
    
  • Integration vs. computer classes
    
  • "essential conditions"
    
  • Student-centered pedagogy
    
  • Substitution or transformation
    
  • Metacognition
    
  • Teacher education
    
• Sociological (related to the ways that technology in education involves aspects of the larger society)
  
  • Effects on larger society
    
  • Effects on democracy
    
  • Relationship to nature
    
  • Effects on relationships
    
  • Social-networking
    
  • Effects on creativity
    
  • Effects on policy
    
  • Work, skills, training
    
  • 
    
• Ethical
  
  • Proper uses of technology
    
  • privacy
    
  • filters and subcultural knowledge ("hacking")
    
  • Digital divide
    

    
     

I also see a number of important issues that cut across these various categories:

    Is educational transformation possible?

    Web 2.0 and education

    Democracy and technology

 

I welcome comments on this brief outline since I hope to make this a comprehensive framework for looking at this topic.

Discussion, or Demagoguery?

In my most recent post, I shared a letter that I had written to my parents and close friends endorsing Barack Obama for president. I got a lot of positive feedback about the letter, especially from my friends, including one person who remains "on the fence" and found it persuasive. A number of my friends sent it around to THEIR friends, which is gratifying. I'll be happy if it helps to convince even one person to choose Obama over McCain.

From my family, I got a variety of responses. My younger brother sent me a private email saying simply "I'm wid ja Bro!". Very glad to hear that. My older brother never responded. (Typical.) My mother also wrote privately to say that she's leaning toward Obama (Yay!) and that she appreciated receiving my thoughts. (Mom is definitely an "independent" in her political leanings, having voted in the past for both George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton. The fact that she's leaning Obama says a lot about the campaign Barack has been running in comparison to that of McCain.)

My mom's sister responded with a very nice familial email in which she said that she and my uncle "will vote for the Republican candidate because we just cannot support Obama. If the polls are correct, he may well be our next President, but not because of our vote. Let’s hope the better man wins and can turn around this trend toward an economic abyss our country is heading for." The "just cannot support Obama" part is a bit vague, although I suspect it has to do with Obama's position on a woman's right to choose an abortion, since they are pretty strongly Catholic. I hope it's not because Obama isn't white.

My father (who has been divorced from my mother for 20 years) responded to "all" (that is, all family, not my friends, who were BCC'd), taking advantage of my "public" endorsement to argue publicly and vociferously against Obama and for a conservative viewpoint. He included at the end an exchange that he and my younger brother had been having, and responded to both of us.

You have to understand that my father has in all likelihood NEVER voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. His strongly Republican views come through loud and clear in his response. Indeed, I think one could say that he epitomizes the secular right-wing viewpoint on most issues.

Here's his email, which is as classic a statement of conservative political views as there ever was:

First, I lean to the right because I believe in human rights and the belief that our Constitution upholds those rights. I believe fully in the Bill-of-Rights and will vehemently fight to preserve them, especially the right to speak freely and the right to carry arms, both of which the left is against - more on that later. This discussion couldn't take place in most countries. This discussion doesn't take place in the leftist parlors either because the left is aligned with socialist principles; meaning, more government, more regulation, and more "spreading the wealth."

[I am not really sure what "socialist" has to do with the absence of free speech, but there it is.]

Second, I lean to Republicans because of what I said with the First reason. Most Republicans support free speech. Democrats do not! Democrats want to pass the "Fairness Doctrine" This is a great sounding bill that has a communist undercurrent to control the free press as well as the "free" radio and TV media. The Doctrine says that all media that is licensed by the Federal Government MUST present the issues fairly and evenly to all points of view. This means that: Unless the Federal Government approves of what is said on a TV or radio station, it can shut the station down or fine it severely until it complies with what Government feels is fair or that it presents it's point of view. Also most Democrats want gun control. There are great arguments for controlling the issuing of licenses for carrying guns and I concur with most of those, but the kind of argument that will take guns, of any kind, away from private citizens is not OK. The Courts overturning of the gun control in Washington DC was a victory for the Constitutionalist and the Right-wing.

[Of course, Obama also supported the recent decision regarding the Washington DC gun-control law, although he believes that stronger measures need to be taken to remove illegal guns from the hands of criminals.]

Third, - the economy: I firmly believe in laissez-faire capitalism. I know, we have never had a fully capitalistic economy; government has not allowed it to happen. Anytime a company has become "too" successful because of its so called "greed" the congress has reeled the company in by overtaxing it or brought it's executives before a left leaning congressional committee to ask it to explain its profits. Folks, please, I appeal to you, it is precisely because of profits that have helped this country to grow to the stature it has today in the world. I give you China - most people don't know that the tremendous growth over the last few years in China is because the communist regime understands the principles of Capitalism and has poured all company's profits, (that's right, I said all,) back into the companies and into China's economy. Obama does not understand that and McCann does.

[My dad misspells McCain's name consistently. That's okay...he often misspells MY name. In this last paragraph we see very clearly that my Dad has a black/white view of political issues. If you don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism, you don't believe in profits. And Chinese capitalism--hardly laissez-faire!--is good regardless of the human rights issues that might be involved.]

Since the bailout was passed by a Congress bought with "Pork," and Obama has promised to "Spread the Wealth," the "Market" has taken a nosedive. Investor's belief in our economy is at an all-time low. Is that because of the Bush policies? I think not. I think, as long as Obama is ahead in the polls, the Market will not improve, and, I believe that if Obama gets in office, we are in for a very, very long recovery, especially when he gets his tax plan passed to increase taxes in all categories, in an unopposed Congress, especially capital gains. Folks - we do not need more taxes, anywhere, in this economy - taxes of any kind will kill any economic growth. Also, the World Markets stand to lose as well, because of the Democrat's position on trade protectionism.

[Evidence that the stock market decline is due to Obama's lead in the polls? None...but here it is taken as prima facie evidence. Did Obama promise to "Spread the Wealth"? Well, yes, he did, and it's been taken as proof of a secret agenda.]

Fourth, trust: I do not know Obama. Craig, I know that you have a personal relationship with Obama and I'm sure that the liberal circles you live and breath in has tainted your perception of him, yes, I said tainted, I didn't want to use brain-washed. Your appeal to us to accept your perception of him, by your leftist views, just doesn't appeal to me. I do not know Obama, but I DO NOT trust him, or his judgment. I agree with Biden that he will be tested and I don't trust his instincts to do the right thing for this country. I don't want to place our economy in the hands of someone that has said that he "wants to redistribute the wealth." This does not represent, to me, a fresh approach for America. This is not the kind of "change" I want. It's the Hoover, FDR, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and our present congress with tax increases, New Deals, Great Societies, all of which have never made this country better economically or improved our stature in the world. You can, as every Obama supporter does, blame the present administration for all of our present troubles in the economy, but if you're a student of placing the blame, your argument doesn't hold any weight. If you are open to learn where the blame really lies, it always turns up with the Democrats and their "Great" plans to help the poor and the "little" people and raise the taxes on those who earn their money by being creative and working hard.

[Wow. "Tainted." When I called him on this in a response, he offered this: "I'm sorry I called you tainted. You're not a piece of rotten meat. I wish I knew of a better word to describe our "Liberal" education system beyond high school. Persuaded? Brain-washed? Hammered with principals that teaches you that the "individual" is not as important as the "collective." That corporations are essentially and inherently bad and do evil things. That the word "Capitalism" is not something that is good in it's principals. That there is some good in everything - that somehow you can find charity within a dictatorship, that somehow a system that is based on socialist values is good for me and America. That the lower class of people (liberals definition, not mine) are needy and that as long as we continue to take from the wealthy and give to the needy, it's OK. Your generation and newer now have the idea that you deserve a hand out from the government.

[Again, it's the black/white thinking. Because I think "laissez-faire capitalism" is a myth--even he admitted it's never happened--I think "capitalism is not something good"?!?! That I'm willing to find good in many different forms of government, I "somehow find charity within a dictatorship". And I "deserve a handout from the government"!!!?! What?]

Fifth, being an American first: Obama says that he is a Citizen of the World. What does that mean to me? It means that he isn't going to put America first. He says that the symbol of the American Flag in the "World's" eyes has negative connotations and he doesn't wear it for that reason. I will not vote for a man or woman that doesn't feel that it is their patriotic duty to salute or show off the American Flag as a symbol of Freedom and the American dream and ideal. I will never put my well-being and my trust in someone that doesn't feel that America is their country to defend and to uphold in every situation. Craig says that he is: "Barack is as pro-American as any American." I believe that it is precisely why nations hate us; it's because of the freedoms we give our citizens and the way we continue to promote freedom wherever we can. It is the socialist governments and it is the Islamic ideals that wish to crush America and what we stand for. It is the countries that have a slightly higher growth rate in the population of Muslims that hate America. Radical Islamist are very active in those countries where they reside to move the rest of the population to hate America. (I wish I had the time to place my references in this.)

[Wow. we go from Obama is a "citizen of the world" to hating America. Again, there's no subtlety here.]

I, like Craig, hope all of you vote. But, unlike Craig, I want you to vote for the Republican ticket. I want my Grandchildren to have choices in their future. The problem is: our children are being taught that the government will provide them a free lunch which is what Obama is offering. I want children to have the freedom to chose whatever they want and to be taught to assume responsibility for their own welfare. I believe that it's governments responsibility to protect us, providing an environment to succeed at whatever we want to pursue within the cover that our Constitution provides us.

Like you Craig, I have studied the issues from both the left and the right, not for a few months, but for most of my adult life. I must admit to leaning to the right in my thinking, but only because it serves my views on politics and the way I want to leave this country for my Grandchildren. I must say that the McCann' ticket doesn't excite me very much and I wish that there was a real conservative running against Obama for a clearer choice. I will vote for McCann, however, because he is a Neo Conservative and will make the correct choices in foreign policy. (see my take on the neocons below in [your brother's] email thread.)

My Dad and I went back and forth on a few of these issues in a few more emails, but never really got anywhere. I tried to argue that "liberal" means--in part--understanding that any viewpoint on any topic reflects the particular perspective of those who take it, and that we should recognize that one can hold positions at various points on the political spectrum and still be "pro-America," and that progressive taxation isn't "socialism." But I should have realized it was all for naught: my Dad wasn't going to change his views, and I wasn't going to change mine.

Meanwhile, my dad's sister chimed in in response to his first long email. This aunt lives in a rural southern state, where she has embraced what I (being the urbane liberal that I am) might call a rural southern mentality. Her input takes on a different flavor from my father's, because she doesn't discuss core political issues:

Very well said my brother! I could not have stated my position any better.

Craig, I have to agree with my brother. He has stated my views, feelings about this election very well. I acknowledge that you "know" Barak [sic] Obama and that you apparently circle the same "neighborhoods". But my gut does not trust the man. The issues that [my brother] has mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg for me. There is something that gut wrenches me every time I hear the man speak that tells me he is not ringing true. He is very eloquent in stating his agenda in a way that says to me he is trying to make me believe that he is on my side and all will be well, but my gut tells me that it is not all above board. Why will he not come forth with all the documents that the public has asked for?? I cannot put trust in a person that will not show all that is asked of him. If he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he provide the birth certificate, college records and medical records that have been asked of him? He blames everything on the present administration - what about the Democratic congress that has been in "power" the last four years??

I will close for now, since [my brother] has stated my beliefs very well. I do not trust Obama, I do not agree with his agenda or ideas, and I do not feel he has the judgement needed to lead America and make the right decisions for America in the global theater presently or the future. He will be tested and he has NOTHING to help him, including his party.

I will vote for the Republican ticket. I do not agree with and cannot support the left wing Democratic Party. I pray that Americans will wake up and really hear what Obama is offering before they vote for him.

Sigh. Here, we have something more than political disagreement. We have "gut wrenches" that tap deeply into emotional undercurrents. Perhaps it's fear; perhaps it's anti-intellectualism; perhaps it's a deep distrust of people who appear to be rootless; perhaps it's racism. One cannot tell. In any case, this aunt isn't really considering whom to vote for; she "knows" intuitively, and isn't interested in the issues.

But what really caught my attention here was the innuendo. She asks "why doesn't he provide the birth certificate....that [has] been asked of him." I hadn't heard that Obama hadn't provided his birth certificate. So I did a little research. I discovered that yes, on June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign had released his birth certificate, but that this did not satisfy many on the right, who want to believe that Obama is really a Muslim, or an Arab, or was really born in Kenya, or Indonesia, and that somehow if he became president he would be illegitimate because he wasn't born in the United States.

It's quite amazing, really, this speculation. Go ahead, do the Google search. In addition to the snopes.com and factcheck.org refutations of this speculation, and the St. Petersburg Times' detailed investigation of the authenticity of the birth certificate that the campaign provided (more here), you get all sorts of claims about how it is an "absolute forgery" because, again entirely speculatively, it appears to have been printed on a laser printer, and doesn't show a signature or seal, and includes the word "African" under "Father's Race" when clearly (!) Obama's father was an "Arab."

So I read through some of this stuff, and sent an email back to my aunt (copying everyone in the family) saying that in fact Obama HAD released his birth certificate and it had been found to be authentic by a variety of investigations, and that this allegation undermines the credibility of anyone who uses it as a "reason" for not supporting Obama. I even included an image of the released birth certificate.

My aunt, not too surprisingly, didn't respond to that email. (I think she just finds my responses to be liberal rants.) My Dad responded with this:

There are some who say [emphasis mine] that this birth certificate is not real. That it was/is produced on a modern laser printer which did not exist in 1961, and why is the certificate # blacked out - what's to hide here? This appeared on the LA Times Blog. Obama didn't produce this as required. I'm not saying that he must personally produce it, but it's odd that when he registered to become President two years ago that he didn't produce it then or was asked to produce it. This is all conjecture on my part [emphasis mine] because I don't have first hand knowledge of whether this is Obama's Birth Certificate. Problem is, no one else knows for sure that it is either.

BTW, Obama's mother - was she a US citizen the required number of years to produce a natural born American child. Does anyone know? I do know that Obama's father was Kenyan, an Arab [!!!}, not African as the certificate says. Is Africa a country; I thought it was a continent?

Wow. "There are some who say" and "All conjecture on my part"--but he's going to make the allegation anyway. "Arab"?!??!? What? So, I responded with some specifics:

Dad,

The more you and your sister talk about this, the less credibility you have. Indeed, it merely serves as evidence that you will believe anything as long as it serves to buttress your political beliefs.

Why would the candidate of a major political party base the legitimacy of his campaign and possible [i wrote "pregnancy" here, but clearly meant "presidency"] on a lie that could be EASILY disproved through medical records?!??!?!

Since I have been taught to use evidence to back up my claims, here’s some proof:

I already sent you the Snopes link, which debunks this myth. Did you read it? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

How about this one: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.

About FactCheck.org Our Mission “We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.”

And Obama’s father was African, NOT an Arab.

“Arab, Arabian (a member of a Semitic people originally from the Arabian peninsula and surrounding territories who speaks Arabic and who inhabits much of the Middle East and northern Africa)” http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=arab

Obama’s father was Muslim, but not Arab. He was a member of a Kenyan tribe, the Luo. “They speak the Dholuo language, which belongs to the Western Nilotic branch of the Nilo-Saharan language family spoken by other Luo-speaking peoples such as the Lango, Acholi, Padhola and Alur (all of Uganda).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joluo

They don’t speak Arabic. And Kenya isn’t in Northern Africa.

So Obama’s father was African.

As you MAY know, demographic categories are ARBITRARY for the most part. Who decides, for example, whether a person is “Hispanic,” or “latino,” or “Caucasian.” Obama’s mother filled out the form for the birth certificate in 1961 and said Obama’s father was “African.” (She probably felt strongly that he wasn’t a “black,” or “negro,” or “coloured” person, because he wasn’t an American. He was an African student.) The Hawaii Department of Health accepted that designation.

Obama’s campaign released his birth certificate on June 13, 2008. It LOOKS just like other Hawaiian birth certificates of the time. These articles discuss the fact-checking done by one organization on this issue.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/13/obamas-birth-certificate/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/.

READ these articles!!!!! Or, frankly, stop spouting off about this ridiculous issue as if it IS an issue.

Now, I understand that someone who doesn't really care about "evidence" such as this would find this email to be perhaps heavy-handed: piling it on. After all, quoting all these sources might simply indicate a tenaciously adamant attitude rather than a careful consideration of facts. In theory, after all, someone who was arguing on the other side might offer a similar pile of evidence. This being the case (one might say), why should we pay any attention to this at all?!??!

So how did my dad respond?

Let's agree to disagree about the importance of the birth certificate issue. I'm sure any source that you come up with will, in your mind, support your feelings on this, and visa-versa.

now let's talk about the issues.

Oh. My. God. So, rather than either offer his own evidence, or concede that my evidence is compelling, or even admit that the initial speculation was wrong, my dad basically accuses ME of being willing to accept any evidence at all. I was furious. Rather than respond right away, knowing that my anger might cause me to say something I would regret, I decided to sleep on it. (Not that I slept well...interspersed in wierd dreams about my friend Willie and a Ford Mustang, it kept coming back into mind.)

So, this morning, I wrote the following:

So, this is the way it is, huh? You throw around speculative bullshit about Obama being not what he says he is. I supply evidence that he IS what he says he is.

Rather than supplying any evidence at all that your spurious allegations are correct—and rather than even RESPONDING to my evidence or even trying to deflect it—you accuse ME of “accepting any source” and refuse to engage the issue. (This, despite the fact that I spent an hour finding the best evidence I could find…..and even supplied credentials of one of the organizations involved.)

Dad, that’s not political discussion or argument. That’s demagoguery.

I quit.

Before I sent this, I wanted to be sure I wasn't using "demagoguery" incorrectly. So, I typed "define demagoguery" into Google. Basically, demagoguery refers to an approach to political speech that emphasizes the emotions and passions of the mob, rather than rational discussion of issues. (See also Wikipedia article.) There are all sorts of methods that count as demagoguery, including mixing apples and oranges, using half-truths, citing false authority, creating a false dilemma, demonization, straw man, loaded questions, unrelated facts, emotional appeal, and personal attack.

My father's response was demagoguery in several of these senses (false authority, loaded questions, half-truths), but primarily because of its use of speculative innuendo (an indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation).

My father's response to this last email was somewhat gracious, but also predictably weaselly. Rather than respond to "all" (as we had been doing all along), he responded privately to me, and wrote:

I'm sure that your sources are credible, just as I'm sure that anything I throw back at you will be completely baseless and unfounded. This discussion between us isn't unique. It's been going on for ages and ages. Your responses to a conservative viewpoint aren't new and refreshing to a conservative. The arguments that we've had aren't winnable and neither side will ever seem reasonable. Only the votes will tell.

The main reason I responded to your first email was because you found it in your heart to tell our whole family what's best for them and how they should vote and how deeply you felt that a vote for McCain would be a waste and "wrongminded."

[Um, I don't think I used that word.}

Craig, I love you. You're bright and a great family man and I'm sure that your students really get a fine education from you. But, you're also a college liberal, through and through, and I never expected anything from you other than what you did and said. It's just that I don't like the fact that liberals think that they know what's best for the average American and that they will provide for them with governments help and my tax dollars. ---- The poor have been voting for the Democrats forever because of promises made - they're still poor.

I'm through too. This has been a rigorous experience for me and very tiring. I'm not a natural writer and these responses have taken hours and hours to formulate and write. ( even this little note has taken me more than an hour and I haven't had breakfast yet!) But, I don't regret having done it. It's shown me that my convictions are strong and on the mark. And it's shown me how much your convictions (though wrongminded :) are strong and that you stick up for what you believe.

Please don't be angry with me, my son. As you are, I'm just sticking up for my convictions.

love,
Dad

PS: I'm sorry about the birth certificate response; it wasn't fair, and it was sort of "demagoguery" wasn't it? Personally, I wasn't going to bring up the issue with the birth certificate anyway, but [my sister] said something and you responded. My response was trying to just push the issue aside and get on with the real issues, not "refuse to engage the issue."

So, there we have it. Demagoguery admitted, "sort of." But privately. My dad won't say this to everyone. And, rather than concede anything at all about my argument, he closes the discussion with a last dig at me, a "college liberal, through and through," who (even though he can't cite any evidence of this other than his own feelings that I'm condescending to his point of view), believes (again, by implication, not evidence) "that [I] know what's best for the average American and that [I] will provide for them with governments help and [your] tax dollars."

I guess the moral of this story is one of two things.

1. It's not only impolite but impolitic to discuss politics (or religion) with your family members (but see)

or

2. Never try to argue an ideologue out of his firm convictions. At the end of the day, ideologies aren't about evidence (also here); they are about a person's entire World View.

This latter point applies as much to me, as to my dad.