Picking up my new glasses with my 5yo

I had my 5yo Nathan with me at Costco when picking up a pair of glasses with a new, stronger prescription. They have a "take a number" system, and my number was 48.

When they called my number and handed me the glasses, Nathan asked, "So these are glasses number 48?"

Thornton W. Burgess Public Domain Countdown

Thornton W. Burgess

Public Domain Countdown

What books and other writings by Thornton W. Burgess are now in the public domain, and when will his remaining books enter the public domain? Answers here.

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. YOU SHOULD CONSULT A LAWYER BEFORE COPYING ANYTHING THAT MAY BE UNDER COPYRIGHT PROTECTION.

But first, some basic relevant principles of U.S. copyright law. This is just a simple overview; including all the details is beyond the scope of this blog post. For more information see a book like "The Public Domain" by Stephen Fishman:

• If published in the US before 1923, it's now in the public domain.
• If published in the US from 1923 - 1963:
• With a valid copyright notice:
• If properly renewed during the 28th year, it's protected for 95 years from publication date.
• If not properly renewed during the 28th year, it's now in the public domain.
• Without a valid copyright notice:
• It entered the public domain upon original publication (this rule is for works published before March 1st, 1989, after which copyright notice is not required for copyright protection).
• If published from 1964 - 1977, it's protected for 95 years from publication date.
• If unpublished, it's protected through 2035 (70 years after Burgess' 1965 death).
• In 1998, US copyright protection for works published 1923 - 1977 was extended from 75 to 95 years. So works published in 1923 enter the public domain in 2019 instead of 1999. Due to that 1998 extension, no work's copyright protection expires in the 20 year period from 1999 - 2018.
• However, this does not re-protect works that were already in the public domain when the law went into effect in 1998, or that ever went into the public domain for any other reason.
• US copyright protection never ends in the middle of a year. Protection always extends through December 31st of the last year a work is protected. When a work enters the public domain due to the expiration of protection, it always does so on the January 1st after the end of its protection.
• For example, if a work is published on July 1st of a year for which 95 years of protection are provided, that work gets 95 and 1/2 years of protection, then enters the public domain at the start of January 1st.
• Most of the copyright dates given below come from my own collection, but I also relied on the excellent "Thornton W. Burgess: A Descriptive Book Bibliography" (2nd edition) by Wayne W. Wright.

Main Thornton W. Burgess Fiction
Now in the Public Domain

(and when it entered the public domain)

• All 8 books in the Mother West Wind series
• Published 1910 - 1918, PD 1986 - 1994
• All 20 books in the Bedtime Stories series
• Published 1913 - 1919, PD 1989 - 1995
• Tommy and the Wishing Stone (both single title and series)
• Published 1915, PD 1991
• All 4 books in the Green Meadow series
• Published 1918 - 1920, PD 1994 - 1996
• Burgess Bird Book for Children
• Published 1919, PD 1995
• Burgess Animal Book for Children
• Published 1920, PD 1996
• Lightfoot the Deer
• Published 1921, PD 1997
• Blacky the Crow
• Published 1922, PD 1998
• Whitefoot the Wood Mouse
• Published 1922, PD 1998
• Serialized newspaper stories
• "Little Stories for Bedtime" (1912-1920), then "Burgess Bedtime Stories ("1920-1960"), and sometimes "Nature Stories".
• Printed 1912-1960, PD 1941-1989
• Why did these newspaper stories enter the public domain so soon? Why did they not get the 75 (for those published 1912-1922) or 95 (for those published 1923-1960) years of protection that was possible for works published those years? Because they were not renewed during their 28th year, at a time when that was required. For serial works, an additional 4 years may? be allowed, but they were not renewed in that time frame either. They were never renewed at all. 
• What if they had been properly renewed? In that case, the stories published 1912-1922 would have entered the public domain 1988-1998 (after 75 years), and the stories published 1923-1960 would have entered the public domain 2019-2056 (after 95 years).
• What about the books based on the newspaper stories, where the book is still protected? The book copyrights cannot extend the newspaper story copyrights. Where books were based on earlier copyrighted newspaper stories, the book copyrights protect only the creative differences. Sometimes Burgess rewrote whole sections (clearly a creative change); other times he simply omitted the daily recap of the previous day's story (probably not a creative change, but it would be up to a judge to decide).
• What about the copyrights on the newspapers themselves? A work cannot be protected by two different copyrights, and a copyright cannot protect something that the copyright owner does not own (or more precisely, does not have the right to copyright). Burgess newspaper stories were syndicated. With most syndicated authors, the syndicate had ownership and copyright. Burgess was unusual in that he retained copyright, aside from a handful of early stories for which he sold the rights (and that are now public domain). Since Burgess had ownership and copyright of the newspaper stories, the copyright on the newspaper itself did not protect the Burgess story in it.
• Does that mean someone could repackage the original newspaper stories that were behind a book that is still copyright protected, and sell them as the same title? For example, Burgess' book "Longlegs the Heron", published 1927, properly renewed, and copyright protected until 2033? 
• No. Book titles cannot be copyrighted, so there is no copyright infringement in naming a new book "Longlegs the Heron". However, other laws give the public the right not to be deliberately misled about the contents of a book. If a book is issued as "Longlegs the Heron" by Thornton W. Burgess, with text that differs substantially from the well-known book by that title and author, it must at the very least be clearly marked as such, but probably should have a different title that makes clear it's origin, such as "The Original Newspaper Stories That Became Longlegs the Heron". 

Main Thornton W. Burgess Fiction
Yet to Enter the Public Domain

(and when it will)

  

• Burgess Flower Book for Children
• Published 1923, PD 2019
• Buster Bear's Twins
• Published 1923, PD 2019
• Reprinted 1999 by Dover Publications, with no indication that it was used with permission. Copyright violation?
• Billy Mink
• Published 1924, PD 2020
• Reprinted 2012 by Dover Publications, with no indication that it was used with permission. Copyright violation?
• Little Joe Otter
• Published 1925, PD 2021
• Jerry Muskrat at Home
• Published 1926, PD 2022
• Longlegs the Heron
• Published 1927, PD 2023
• Burgess Seashore Book for Children
• Published 1929, PD 2025
• Reprinted 2005 by Dover Publications, with no indication that it was used with permission. Copyright violation?
• Color illustrations, including additional illustrations, all by Harrison Cady, in new editions of 8 of the Bedtime Stories series books, published by Little, Brown in 1941 and 1944. All included the original 6 illustrations, but now in color.
• Published 1941 with 10 color illustrations, PD 2037:
• Reddy Fox
• The additional illustrations show (a) Old Mistah Buzzard perched in a tree, (b) Reddy Fox crying, with Granny Fox, (c) Granny Fox walking, and (d) Unc' Billy Possum watching Farmer Brown's Boy.
• Peter Cottontail
• Buster Bear
• Jimmy Skunk
• Published 1944 with 8 color illustrations, PD 2040:
• Johnny Chuck
• The additional illustrations show (a) Johnny Chuck meeting Polly Chuck (also on the cover), and (b) Sammy Jay finding Johnny Chuck's family.
• Danny Meadow Mouse
• The color illustrations are shown at Project Gutenberg, in violation of copyright law:
• http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25301/25301-h/25301-h.htm
• Grandfather Frog
• The additional illustrations show (a) Grandfather Frog showing off his handsome clothes to Old Mr. Toad, and (b) Farmer Brown's Boy carrying Grandfather Frog.
• Bobby Coon
• The additional illustrations show (a) Farmer Brown's Boy waving goodbye to Bobby Coon, and (b) Buster Bear standing.
• If these color editions sound interesting and you're thinking of collecting them, note that they were poor quality. The paper and binding were very cheap, and the boards were thin. In the 1944 books, the reproductions of the illustrations range from bad to really awful (they are much better in the 1941 books). However, they are interesting for the additional illustrations, none of which were ever printed in any other editions, though in at least some cases they were redrawn for the later Grosset & Dunlap editions (see below).
• On the Green Meadows
• Published 1944, PD 2040
• At the Smiling Pool
• Published 1945, PD 2041
• The Crooked Little Path
• Published 1946, PD 2042
• The Dear Old Briar Patch
• Published 1947, PD 2043
• Along Laughing Brook
• Published 1949, PD 2045
• At Paddy the Beaver's Pond
• Published 1950, PD 2046
• New illustrations by Harrison Cady in all 20 books in the Bedtime Stories series (14 per book), published by Grosset & Dunlap. Some of these were new versions of the original illustrations, while others were completely new. All were line drawings designed for printing on cheap plain paper, rather than paintings intended for printing on art plates like the original 1910s illustrations:
• Published 1949 - 1957, PD 1949 - 1957
• Why did these new illustrations enter the public domain when they were published? Because they were published without proper copyright notice, back when that was required. Also, they were not renewed during their 28th year, so even if they had been published with proper copyright notice, they would have entered the public domain 1977 - 1985.
• If Grosset & Dunlap had immediately reprinted them with proper copyright notice, protection might have been preserved. But GD did nothing of the kind. To the contrary, they published 4 editions over almost 30 years, all with exactly the same copyright problem. First there were the jacketed hardcovers of 1949 - 57, then the pink hardcovers in 1962, then the pink hardcovers were reissued with ISBN numbers (a new thing then) around 1970, and finally the library editions (tan hardcovers, tough as nails, many of them faded to green by now), of 1977. In some cases it was arguably 5 editions; several of the earlier jacketed hardcovers were later reissued with different covers, endpapers, and bindings.
• Some of them were published with the 1941 or 1944 copyright date of the color editions, while some others were published with the 28th-year renewal dates (1941 - 1947) of their original copyrights. US copyright law allows backdating copyright protection when the year in the copyright notice is earlier than the actual publication year. But that is intended for when the date in the copyright notice is inadvertently earlier than the publication year, normally due to a delay in publication after printing. It's highly unlikely that it would be accepted when the earlier date given is clearly the copyright date for earlier material -- or worse, merely the renewal date of the copyright of an earlier edition. Even if it was accepted, US copyright law is clear that the earlier date becomes the legal publication date for copyright law purposes, so the requirement at the time for renewal on the 28th year would fall 28 years from the earlier date. Those renewals, on the 28th year after the dates given in the copyright notices, happened for only 5 of the titles. In those 5 titles, the color edition's earlier publication date was listed in the Grosset & Dunlap edition as the copyright date, and the 28th-year renewal was really for the 1940's color edition. But again, the publication date of one edition is highly unlikely to be accepted as a backdated copyright date for another edition.
• Titles where the 1941 or 1944 copyright date of the color edition is given:
• Peter Cottontail
• Published by G&D in 1950 with a 1941 copyright date. 1941 was when the color edition was published. The 28th-year renewal date of the original 1914 copyright was 1942.
• Danny Meadow Mouse
• Published by G&D in 1950 with a 1944 copyright date. 1944 was when the color edition was published. The 28th-year renewal date of the original 1915 copyright was 1943.
• Buster Bear
• Published by G&D in 1949 with a 1941 copyright date. 1941 was when the color edition was published. The 28th-year renewal date of the original 1916 copyright was 1944.
• Titles where the 28th-year renewal date of the original copyright date is given:
• Johnny Chuck
• Published by G&D in 1952 with a 1941 copyright date. 1941 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1913 copyright.
• Unc' Billy Possum
• Published by G&D in 1951 with a 1942 copyright date. 1942 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1914 copyright.
• Mr. Mocker
• Published by G&D in 1951 with a 1942 copyright date. 1942 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1914 copyright.
• Jerry Muskrat
• Published by G&D in 1951 with a 1942 copyright date. 1942 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1914 copyright.
• Grandfather Frog
• Published by G&D in 1952 with a 1943 copyright date. 1943 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1915 copyright.
• Chatterer the Red Squirrel
• Published by G&D in 1949 with a 1943 copyright date. 1943 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1915 copyright.
• Sammy Jay
• Published by G&D in 1949 with a 1943 copyright date. 1943 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1915 copyright.
• Old Mr. Toad
• Published by G&D in 1949 with a 1944 copyright date. 1944 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1916 copyright.
• Prickly Porky
• Published by G&D in 1949 with a 1944 copyright date. 1944 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1916 copyright.
• Old Man Coyote
• Published by G&D in 1952 with a 1944 copyright date. 1944 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1916 copyright.
• Paddy the Beaver
• Published by G&D in 1951 with a 1945 copyright date. 1945 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1917 copyright.
• Poor Mrs. Quack
• Published by G&D in 1953 with a 1945 copyright date. 1945 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1917 copyright.
• Bobby Coon
• Published by G&D in 1954 with a 1946 copyright date. 1946 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1918 copyright.
• Jimmy Skunk
• Published by G&D in 1955 with a 1946 copyright date. 1946 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1918 copyright.
• Old Mistah Buzzard
• Published by G&D in 1957 with a 1947 copyright date. 1947 was the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1919 copyright.
• Title where it is ambiguous whether the date given is the copyright date of the color edition, or the 28th-year renewal date of the original copyright date:
• Reddy Fox
• Published in 1949 with a 1941 copyright date. 1941 was when the color edition was published. 1941 was also the 28th-year renewal date of the original 1913 copyright.
• Title where only the original copyright date is given:
• Bob White
• Published by G&D in 1956 with only the original 1919 copyright date.
• The later Grosset & Dunlap editions of the Green Meadow Series, Green Forest Series, Smiling Pool Series, and the Wishing-Stone Series, all had new versions of the original illustrations, redrawn for printing on cheap plain paper rather than on art plates, and they all had the same copyright issue as G&D's Bedtime Stories series. However, the quality of the redrawings in these series is too poor to have been Cady's work, even though they have his signature and the cover and title pages say they are his. G&D must have gotten Cady's permission to have an anonymous artist make the new versions of his work for these series.

Riding a "Low Performing" King County Metro Bus

The bus I take to work is always standing-room only. This morning the aisle between the seats was packed like a sardine can and there wasn't room for me to move out of the yellow restricted zone by the driver and front door where theoretically no one is allowed to stand while the bus is moving. Soon even that restricted area was too packed for any more people to squeeze in. Then the driver found enough spare room just inside the back door, normally only used for exiting (because you pay at the front as you get on), to squeeze in a couple more riders.

Since the buses normally jerk around like a bucking bronco, I was a little worried about falling into the driver, but luckily he was driving slowly. He explained that he was being cautious because the extra weight was making the suspension bottom out. 

One advantage to riding up in that yellow restricted area is that it's easier to get out when the bus reaches my stop. Not so easy for those who got in at earlier stops along the route and have to squeeze by 20 other sardines.

This bus route -- route 240 in Bellevue, WA -- is one of many "low performing" King County Metro routes slated for reduction this Fall due to insufficient funding by voters. I'd like to see one of the "high performing" routes. Do those buses have handles on the outside, looking like century-old photos of trolley cars with as many people hanging on the outside as riding on the inside? Maybe seats on the roof would help too.

These reductions coming up are going to force a lot of bus riders into cars, further slowing down our already notoriously glacial commuter traffic (the 3rd-worst in America, after LA and Miami) for everyone. Maybe I'll be one of them.

Telephone Poles

Yesterday we took a walk, and our 5yo Nathan pointed to a telephone pole and asked what it was. When we answered he replied, "A TELEPHONE pole?!? You mean you have to climb up there to call someone?!?

What's Wrong with American Public Schools

We hear over and over and over that Chinese kids are learning much, much more than American kids, and that this is because American public schools are failing our kids. Meanwhile, kids in American public schools today are learning things at a much younger age than their parents learned the same things, have vastly more homework and at a much younger age than their parents did, and have much less lunch and recess time at school than their parents did. What gives?

When American and Chinese kids are compared, what are they comparing exactly? They're comparing the available data. So what data is available? The data available is all Chinese kids in school, and all American kids in public schools. Is that a good and useful comparison?

First, it's generally understood that wealthy kids do better in school than average and poor kids. There may be many reasons for that. Wealthier parents may have more time to help with and enforce homework and may be more motivated to do so, wealthier households may have more intellectually simulating things to do in and around the home and have the means to do more intellectually stimulating activities outside the home, and DNA that performs better in school may bubble upward on the economic ladder.

That wouldn't matter for this comparison if all Chinese kids were being compared to all American kids, but in fact, only the wealthiest Chinese kids go to school at all. The majority of Chinese kids cannot go to school and are not factored into the comparison. So we're comparing the wealthiest Chinese kids to American kids.

Further, most of the wealthiest American kids are in expensive private schools. They too aren't factored into the comparison. Only American kids in public schools are included. That means most of the highest performing American students are not part of the comparison. 

But there's still more. In America, public schools are tasked with educating ALL kids, even the most troubled kids who make no effort to learn and do nothing but cause trouble, and even the most mentally challenged kids. In China, such troubled kids are removed from school while mentally challenged kids never enter school at all. 

So the comparison excludes many of America's best students, while including America's most troubled and most mentally challenged kids. The average American student being compared is well below the performance of the real average American student. But for China, the comparison includes only the top performers. 

The comparison is perfectly absurd, and of no real use at all. We're comparing America's below-average kids to China's top performers. No one should be surprised that the below-average kids of one nation aren't up to speed with the top performers of another. The weird thing is that we're actually trying to bring America's below-average kids up to the level of China's top performers. It's idiotic and dysfunctional, and it's not going to work.

This isn't really the fault of the American public school system or its teachers. We the voters are ultimately responsible for having tasked them with this impossible goal. The problem is the American media, and the mindless drones among their readers and viewers, who compare top-performing Chinese kids to below-average American kids, find that the below-average kids are not up to speed with the top performers, and decide, all logic to the contrary, that this means American public schools are failing our kids.

So what should really be compared? The richest X% of China's kids who are fortunate to go to school should be compared to the richest X% of American kids, the overwhelming majority of whom are in expensive private schools. American kids of average wealth, who are mainly in public schools, should be compared to Chinese kids of average wealth -- who sadly have no opportunity to go to school at all.

Those comparisons can't be done well today because good data isn't available. For China, good data probably won't be forthcoming in the foreseeable future because it would make China look bad. But we do know about what percentage of Chinese kids go to school, and that those are generally the richest kids. The obvious next step is to find out who the same percentage of richest American kids are, and get their data. Most of those kids are in private schools. If private schools won't provide that data under current laws, there's a simple fix for that without violating anyone's privacy; a law can be passed requiring each school to just provide the numbers without names attached.

What would that comparison show? Who knows, but one thing's for sure -- it would show something dramatically different than what the current sorry excuses for comparisons show.

Thoughts on the Teardown of My Ugly Old High School Building and Its Less Ugly Replacement

I graduated from Eisenhower High School in Yakima, Washington State in 1983. The original 1956 building was recently torn down and replaced. It was interesting to read comments in response to the new building, especially how many loved the old building and would rather it was preserved.

I was not at all sorry to see the building go. Like so many major buildings of the 1950s and '60s, it was ugly, ugly, ugly, and then some more ugly. Only the gymnasium roof offered a little flair. It wasn't just lack of maintenance; it was a determinedly ugly design. The west and east entrances were designed to look like large pieces must have fallen off. On the south side was a gigantic thing sticking out of the middle looking like a big schnozz, or perhaps it represented one of the architect's fingers. It seemed every side of the building was designed to look like the back of a grocery store facing an alley. 

Some buildings should be preserved, but others should never have been built, and the community is improved when they are finally torn down. The old Ike firmly anchors the far end of the latter group.

The new building is moderately Deconstructivist, the current architectural fashion. At least it doesn't have the slanted walls (!) of the Deconstructivist elementary school recently built in my neighborhood in Bellevue. The ideal Deconstructivist building looks like random pieces chopped off of random buildings and glued together by a monkey. Thankfully the new Ike is much moderated from the pure ideal.

The architect says that the big curved blue wall represents the Yakima River. That reminded me of a comment made by the architect of the library branch built recently in our neighborhood. The windows there are covered with strange markings that, says the architect, represent brain waves when learning, and are meant to make us learn better when reading there. It's a fair guess that those window markings will never have their intended effect on a single library patron; instead they just look weird and block the view. In all likelihood it will be the same with Ike's Curved Blue Wall -- few students are likely to feel they are drifting lazily down the Yakima River on a gorgeous summer afternoon, beer in one hand, Slim Jim in the other, as they walk past it toward their Algebra II class. Unless a plaque is mounted on it explaining its symbolism to future generations, someday it will probably be painted to match the rest of the school, and students will assume the wall's curvature is just there to be different.

The new Ike is not ugly like the old one, but neither is it beautiful. The architecture of major buildings became ugly after WWII when the architectural community broadly agreed, in an epic example of truth being stranger than fiction, that national differences in architecture had caused WWI and WWII. Bizarre as that may sound (because it is), I am not making it up nor exaggerating; it's absolutely true. Scrambling valiantly to save us all from WWIII, architects made large buildings all look the same by removing traditional architectural forms and ornamentation, leaving only plain boxes, each striving to make their boxes plainer than the others. They called it the "International Style".

But they soon lost interest in the original goal of international homogeneity, leaving only an irrational loathing of traditional forms and ornamentation. For some, traditional forms and ornamentation were elevated to a sort of sentient evil incarnate, apparently all but intent on detaching themselves from buildings and marching off to wage WWIII all on their own. Others tried to maintain a vague sense of causality, painting traditional forms and ornamentation with guilt by association with past totalitarian regimes. Why would you want the architectural style of past fascists, they are quick to say reproachfully, ignoring two very obvious points. First, traditional forms and ornamentation were as much a part of free societies as they were of dictatorships. And second, dictators have hardly stuck with traditional architecture; to the contrary, modernist architecture is as much a part of the unfree world today as of the free. It's as plain as day by now that architectural style neither causes totalitarianism nor is a symptom of it, but don't waste your time trying to explain that to a modernist architect. Others who needed a more logical rationalization for rejecting traditional forms and ornamentation spoke of "form follows function", by which they meant nothing of the kind except in the most shallow and illusory sense.

No matter how they rationalized their hatred of traditional architectural forms and ornamentation, all was going well for Modernists until Postmodernist architects brought traditional forms, and sometimes ornamentation too, back into the game in the 1980s and 90s. There are ugly examples of all styles, and Postmodernism is no exception, but the better examples were more beautiful than a Modernist would ever allow a building to be, on principle. Modernists, shocked to discover that people liked beauty in architecture and were glad to pay for it, were forced to regroup. Their response was brilliant -- they swapped in chaos for bland monotony, making their buildings interesting but not beautiful, and most importantly, still rigorously devoid of traditional forms and ornamentation. They called it "Deconstructivist". I guess calling it "Deconstructionist" would have been too obviously to the point.

With the move to Deconstructivist architecture, the nonsense about "form follows function" had to be dropped because not even a child would believe it, but that was a small price to pay to keep out the evil traditional forms and ornamentation. Instead, Deconstructivist architects' unspoken philosophy appears to be "form working against function while the architect talks about form serving function with cosmic perfection". Strange spaces in Deconstructivist buildings purport to be perfectly suited to their purpose, but in fact are so inflexible that they never serve any purpose well. For example, try using any of the Seattle Public Library's specialized spaces for any purpose at all other than marveling at their dysfunction; surely no library as expensive has ever served its purpose as badly. At least you no longer have to worry about banging your head against the dangerously slanted metal supports, as they've put fences around them to keep people from getting too near.

I had thought such an ugly and dysfunctional style as Deconstructivist architecture would be a short-lived fad but I was so, so wrong. It has routed Postmodernist architecture, which survives mainly in its most conservative flavor, Modern (or Contemporary) Classicism. Modern Classicist architecture soldiers on in a small corner of the market because a few customers will choose a beautiful building if given the chance. To get an idea of what a nice Modern Classicist school building can look like, google "Cambridge Judge Business School". Deconstructivists hate, hate, hate it; one even called it, with unintended irony, "architectural terrorism".

Traditional architectural forms and ornamentation were not invented by warmonger-architects. They became popular because they are at the same time comforting and inspiring. They help us relax while encouraging our loftier thoughts to crowd out our pettier ones. If the loftiest thoughts of a few disturbed individuals are still immoral, violent, and destructive, that doesn’t make the architecture responsible for their crimes. Modernist and Deconstructivist architecture can be impressive and innovative, but they are also deliberately discomforting and, once the novelty wears off, oppressive. Try driving through a canyon of Deconstructivist buildings in a large city, and drive the same street again and again until those buildings' innovative novelty wears off. Notice how it's replaced by a distinct feeling of chaos. 

I like to believe, all evidence to the contrary, that someday over the rainbow beautiful buildings will be in fashion once again. If there is any sign of hope, other than the continued survival of Modern Classicism, it is in the philosophy of the best Deconstructivists that Deconstructivism allows the freedom to do anything. Left unsaid is that they really the mean the freedom to do anything not involving any traditional forms nor ornamentation. But if they can someday let go of that last rule, beautiful buildings may one day rise again.

I wonder if I will live to see it. One of two things would have to happen: either Modernist/Deconstructivist architects will have to get over their strange loathing of traditional architectural forms and ornamentation, or customers -- such as the Yakima taxpayers who paid for the new Ike building -- will have to demand beautiful buildings for their money and find architects who are willing to deliver. Which will happen first?

Why it's so hard for single women to find single men in Seattle

Seattle has one of the highest single men to single women ratios in America. So why are so many single women in Seattle unable to find their guy?

Sally, 35, has lived in Seattle all her life, and has dated over a hundred Seattle men, but has never had a relationship last longer than 3 weeks. 

"I carefully explain to each man I date that they were born a rapist and will always be a rapist", Sally explained. "They need to understand that. The first step toward healing is to realize that they are inherently evil and can never become good."

"My friend Penny's husband Bill understands that. He's a rape prevention activist and is always talking about how horrible men are to women. He's awesome! Why can't I find a guy like that?"

Demographer Yvonne has been researching the Seattle dating scene professionally for 10 years. She explains:

"Although there are far more single men than single women in Seattle, most of the single women are looking for men who are feminist activists, are obsessed with gender politics, and have no self respect. There are more men who fit that description in Seattle than anywhere else in the world, but still not anywhere near enough to go around. 

"It's a zero-sum game where every ounce of respect for men is seen as necessarily going hand in hand with an ounce of anti-feminist self-loathing. The vast majority of single women in Seattle grow old without ever getting one of those über-feminist men for herself. Meanwhile, the single Seattle men who don't fit that description have few single women to choose from.

Not that the men are blameless, by any means. Yvonne continues:

"It doesn't help that Seattle single men are without a shadow of a doubt the world's most inept when it comes to meeting women and asking them out. Playing with video games and science-fiction toys all day is not a helpful path to finding lasting love with most women.

"A little encouragement from a single woman would go a long way toward bringing these awkward men out of their shells, but there has been no documented case of that ever happening, perhaps due to the rumor that the Space Needle will spontaneously combust if any Seattle single woman ever does that.

"The sad result is a large city with many singles who have great difficulty finding lasting love, and who in too many cases never will."

However, many of Seattle's single women do have plenty of sex. Yvonne continues:

"When these frustrated women decide it's time to hook up for the night, they are attracted to the polar opposite of the type of man they have been looking for, and spend the night with a macho misogynist. Then, her disgust with how he treats her that night fuels her continued search for Mr. Right.

"Ironically, Seattle is an excellent place for misogynist single men who want to have a lot of sex but not get tied down. They can spend virtually every night with a beautiful, intelligent, highly educated young woman."