The Curmudgeon Speaks

Jobs

2011-08-30T12:11:00.000-04:00

Here's my advice to President Obama on how to solve the unemployment problem. He can use it for free, although it'd be nice to see a little attribution:

Here's the plan: Hire the unemployed as teacher assistants in our public schools. One per classroom, maybe a few extra to help the maintenance staff. Pay them minimum wage, give them free breakfast and lunch and daycare if they have little kids. Let the principals and teachers decide how best to use them -- an extra hand to handle larger classes, extra talent to help reinstate cut programs (music, phys ed, etc.), whatever. Leave the implementation up to the schools, leave the funding to the Feds. It'll cost a little bit, but we're already so much in debt, who'll notice?

Whatever the cost, it's a great investment. Beleaguered schools and teachers get much-needed assistance. Kids get more attention and a better education. Unemployed adults get short-term employment and cash in their pockets. And maybe, just maybe, we inspire some of these short-term teaching assistants to become teachers themselves, which wouldn't be a bad thing. Everybody wins.

If you like this idea, pass it along.

Greatest

2010-09-25T18:04:00.000-04:00

VH1, the channel that used to play music videos, recently released their list of "100 Greatest Artists of All Time," as voted on by today's so-called artists. The list is a joke, of course, as by "all time" they mean "the rock era," as no one bothered to mention Frank Sinatra, George Gershwin, or J.S. Bach. Even taking the list as a rock-era list, however, there are some issues.

VH1's top 10 "greatest artists" were as follows:

1. The Beatles

2. Michael Jackson

3. Bob Dylan

4. Led Zeppelin

5. Rolling Stones

6. Jimi Hendrix

7. Prince

8. Elvis Presley

9. James Brown

10. Stevie Wonder

It's hard to argue against the Beatles heading the list, of course, but there's a lot wrong otherwise. I mean, there' no way Michael Jackson ranks over Dylan or Elvis, and there's really no justification for Prince to be in the top ten at all. It's really indefensible.

The problem, as I see it, is defining "best." It's just too subjective. My "best" isn't going to be the same as yours. Heck, my own definition of "best" will probably differ from day to day, depending on how I'm feeling about things.

So, given that most of the artists interviewed for the TV show talked about how big an influence a given artist was on them, personally, I'd like to change the criteria and suggest a list I'll call the "Top Ten Most Influential Artists of the Rock Era." Here's who I'd choose:

1. The Beatles

2. Bob Dylan

3. Elvis Presley

4. Chuck Berry

5. Berry Gordy

6. Phil Spector

7.Aretha Franklin

8. Madonna

9. Joni Mitchell

10. Rolling Stones

Note that these aren't necessarily my ten favorite artists, or even the ten I'd call the "best," however that's defined. Instead, these are the ten who I think most influenced the music of the era.

As to specifics, I'd agree that it's debatable whether Dylan was really more influential than Elvis, but that's the way I see it; Mr. Zimmerman really influenced the way songwriters wrote. As to putting Joni Mitchell on the list, while she's obviously not as talented as Dylan and the Beatles, she influenced and inspired several generations of female singer-songwriters. (Without Joni, no Jewell -- which I'll forever hold against her). Same thing for putting Aretha on the list; she inspired the creation of the female vocal diva, which rules to this day. (Without Aretha, no Celene Dion -- again, I hold this against the Queen of Soul.) And the same for Madonna -- I'm not a fan, but it's obvious that Lady Gaga and her ilk are.

I put Phil Spector and Berry Gordy on the list, even though they're not performers, because as producers they strongly influenced the sound of the music of the 60s and beyond. Gordy, of course, helped create the Motown Sound, which led to the Philly Sound, which led to just about all soul and R&B music of the past 50 years. Spector's Wall of Sound influenced everybody from Brian Wilson to Bruce Springsteen to U2, so he gets on the list easy.

The others are fairly self explanatory. The Stones, while not my personal favorites, influenced generations of bad boy rock and rollers, as well as the punk and grunge movements. Chuck Berry pretty much invented rock and roll and defined R&R guitar, so there's no way he's not on there. Dylan, as noted, changed the way songs were written, so he's a given. Then there's the Beatles, who head up any list no matter how it's defined. There was pop music before the Beatles and pop music after the Beatles, and that's just he way it is.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Taxes

2010-09-09T16:53:00.000-04:00

Everybody hates taxes. Their taxes, anyway. But we all love what our taxes buy — public schools, police and fire protection, snow removal, etc. We don’t want any of these things taken away, but we also don’t want our taxes raised. It’s a glaring inconsistency.

Frankly, I like having the snow plows clear my street in January. I like having music classes in our high school. I like having police and fire protection. I’m willing to pay for these things. Now, if those costs go up (and they have and will), then we have to pay more for them — which means increasing taxes, one way or another.

That said, I’m never happy for my own taxes to increase, but as long as everybody’s paying their fair share, I can live with it. What I can’t live with are people much wealthier than I who don’t pay their fair share. Hell yeah, raise the taxes on the wealthy — or at least remove the unwarranted tax cuts that the Bushies gave them during the last administration.

People who earn two, three, ten, twenty times more than I do can afford to pay a little more in taxes. Try raising those taxes first before you raise taxes on the rest of us. Then, if we still need increased taxes to pay for the necessities that we like and need, then by all means do so. That’s part of our public duty — paying for the services we use.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Kindle Update

2010-07-29T18:45:00.002-04:00

As if I didn't dislike the Kindle enough as-is, my brand-new Kindle broke just 24 hours into use. (The screen went all wonky.) So I not only don't like how it works, it simply doesn't work. What kind of piece of crap is that? (Or is it simply more proof that Amazon should stick to selling other people's stuff, instead of trying to make their own; they're really kind of sucky as a tech hardware company.)

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Kindle

2010-07-28T14:59:00.002-04:00

Just got a Kindle yesterday, for a project I'm doing. I am not impressed.

This thing has horrible readability in low light (why not add a backlight?), annoying reverse blink whenever you change pages, and relies too much on the small and virtually unreadable keys on the keypad. Along the same lines, the interface to the Amazon Kindle store is in extremely small, unreadable, and unresizeable text. (As you can probably tell, I'm big on the unreadability thing, especially as my eyes age -- small type doesn't work well in my apparently dark and dreary world.)

I'm not tethered to any particular container; I care more about the content than how it's delivered. But the Kindle makes reading somewhat less enjoyable, at least to me. Bah.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds (or people with better eyesight) may disagree.

Apple

2010-07-17T12:53:00.000-04:00

Here's a great example of how NOT to do great customer service.

Regarding the iPhone 4's reception problems, Steve Jobs says (1) It's a faulty design, but (2) Everybody else does it, too, and (3) Not too many customers complained, so (4) We'll give you a cheesy looking "bumper" as a quick and dirty patch, but (5) If you don't like it, we don't want to sell you one, anyway, so there.

What an arrogant S.O.B.! Combine this with the signal strength bars thing (they've been lying to us since day one -- you're okay with that, aren't you?) and the rash of iTunes Stores hacks (Got a problem? Contact your credit card company, not us), can one imagine a consumer company with a WORSE attitude towards the customer? Hey, we're Apple, love it or leave it, chump. We don't have to provide any customer service -- you'll buy our stuff just because it looks cool.

Honestly, would any other company get away with this crap? I'm having big problems justifying upgrading my current iPhone. Why should anyone buy any product from this arrogant, self-centered bunch of assholes?

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Healthcare

2009-07-08T16:58:00.002-04:00

Healthcare in America stinks. We pay more than other civilized countries, and get worse results. We wouldn't accept this when buying a car, would we? Imagine comparing your car to your neighbors -- I paid twice what you did, and have twice as many repairs! What kind of value is that?

The problems are many. Too many people don't have any health insurance. Those of us who do have insurance pay too much for it, or are forced to buy plans that don't have enough coverage. (So-called high deductible plans.) If we go to change plans (when we move, or when we change jobs), many of us are denied coverage because of "pre-existing conditions." All too often the health insurance companies deny treatments and medicines recommended by our personal doctors. It all costs too much, as well -- we spend more per capita on healthcare than any other Western nation. And, despite the costs, the results are abysmal, no matter how they're measured.

Let's look at these points one by one.

Why, some might ask, must everyone have health insurance? What right does the government have dictating whether or not we have health insurance? If a person decides to not have insurance, why should I care? This one's really simple, as explained to me by my old doctor back in Indiana. He was for national health insurance, for this reason: "I don't want the guy next to me on the bus to have pneumonia." It's a selfish reason, but a good one. When everyone has good health care -- good preventative healthcare -- there will be fewer sick people around. And the fewer sick people around, the less likely it is I'll get sick from them. Ta-da! Beyond that, there's the simple humanitarian aspect; if somebody is sick or hurt, we should help them; who's paying for that service shouldn't enter into it. Think of it this way: If your child is sick or hurt, you want him to be cared for. It's not a matter of health plans and deductible and payments, you want your kid to get better. It's no more complex than that.

Then there's the paying for it. In years past, it didn't cost that much -- especially if you got healthcare through your employer. But costs keep going up and up and up, so that not having insurance might be the only option for those with low incomes. It's even a problem for employers, who are facing increasingly substantial costs for this employee perk. In fact, it may be the employers who finally push healthcare reform this go round; even the biggest corporations are getting on the bandwagon due to increasing costs. (In addition, our system is blatantly unfair; the poorest fifth of Americans spend 18% of their income on healthcare, while the richest fifth pay only about 3% of their incomes. That's not right.)

That said, those who have insurance as part of their jobs are the lucky ones. Go out on your own -- change jobs or move or whatever -- and you're likely to be turned down for coverage. It's the old "pre-existing condition" deal; if you're taking any type of medicine, even if that medicine helps to reduce your long-term medical costs, insurance companies don't want to pay for it. It gets worse the older you get; hell, at 50 years old, I am a pre-existing condition! So just qualifying for care (at reasonable rates) is a big issue these days.

Just having insurance doesn't guarantee you can get the care you need, however. How many of us have had their insurance companies deny some sort of treatment recommended by our personal physicians? Most, I'd wager. Every time my old doctor tweaked my medications, it would automatically be denied by my insurance company. EVERY SINGLE TIME. I've heard it said by people who work for insurance companies that they're instructed to automatically deny every claim the first time; even if they end up approving a second request, a certain percentage of people immediately give up, thus saving the insurance company from paying. That's cold, folks. I really don't need some minimum wage flunky in an insurance company cubicle overruling the advice from my personal physician.

So this overly bureaucratic system works hard to deny healthcare to millions, but despite that, it costs the country as a whole much more than it should. I suppose I could live with lousy service if it came cheap, but here in America we pay Rolls Royce rates for Kia quality. That's the gold ol' U.S of A., paying more than any other civilized nation. In 2000, the United States spent 13% of its gross domestic product on health expenditures. That's 22% more than the next most expensive nation, Germany (10.6%). Why are our costs so high? It's a combination of things. First, because so many people are uninsured or underinsured, they don't get proper preventative care, and they wait longer to see a doctor -- and this later, more emergency care costs more. Second, our system is a for-profit system, most health-related companies are public companies trying to meet quarterly profit goals for their investors. Third, these companies are heavy on the expensive management, and we all know how that works. Fourth, there is really no organized pressure to keep costs down, as there is in other countries; witness the lower costs for prescription medicines across the border in Canada. Fifth, there's the simple cost of bureaucracy; the administrative costs of private insurance run 16% of the total budget, while Medicare (that's a government-run program, for those keeping score) costs run only about 3%. (Ask your doctor how many people he has employed who do nothing but deal with insurance companies; you'll be shocked.)

The worst thing is, even paying so much for our healthcare, we get worse results than countries who pay much less. The statistics are overwhelming on this point. The WHO ranks the U.S. 32nd for infant survival and 24th for life expectancy; the Commonwealth Fund ranks us 15 out of 19 with respect to preventable deaths before the age of 75, and last in terms of both infant mortality and life expectancy. We pay more and get less in return. Would you accept this for anything else you buy in life?

So what is the solution? Well, it calls for a complete overhaul of our healthcare system -- not minor tweaks, as some might suggest. That means rethinking everything. We have to reinvent what we have; simply switching from paper records to electronic ones isn't the solution.

Our options, fortunately, are many. We're not the first country in the world to embrace national healthcare; in fact, we're just about the last. So we have the luxury of observing what other countries have done -- we can see what works and what doesn't. Take one from column A and two from column B, and build the best healthcare system in the world.

There are several approaches used in various countries around the world. One approach has the government run everything; the insurance companies go away, and all doctors and hospitals are government run. Another approach keeps doctors and hospitals private, but has all costs paid for by the government; again, no insurance companies are involved. A third approach keeps the insurance companies, but they're forced to provide low-cost coverage for all citizens; in return, they can upsell fancier (and more profitable) coverage to those who want it.

Each of these approaches has its pros and cons; none is 100% perfect. But all of these approaches cost less and get better results than we have today. Changing to any of these plans would be an improvement -- for all of us.

Big change has to happen, and happen fast. Unfortunately, we can do this only if our politicians have the willpower to do so -- which they don't seem to have. Right now, even the most populist politicians are sounding like rank and file conservatives, primarily because they're well funded by the healthcare lobby. The healthcare industry pours hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of politicians of both Democratic and Republican persuasions, with the result that few elected representatives are willing to embrace the total change that we need. "We must preserve the status quo," they cry, even if that status quo benefits only their big money donors. Us regular folks, who overwhelmingly embrace public healthcare, are left in the lurch.

This is the time for a populist uprising. All of us need to write our congresspeople and senators and president and make known how much we need and want dramatic change. Yes, we're talking public healthcare, and that will mean some disruption (mainly in the insurance industry, those fucking leeches), but it's what we want and need and must have. The insurance agency (and their well-paid lobbyists) be damned, we must force our elected official to do what is right and what is needed. This is no time for compromise (hear that, Mr. Obama?); this is time for action. Otherwise, the United States will continue to be the laughingstock of the world community, paying more and more to become less and less healthy. It's not right.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Jackson

2009-06-27T17:10:00.003-04:00

Michael Jackson is dead, and the media is going apeshit 24/7 with Jacko coverage. Frankly, I've had enough. It's just not that important.

IMHO, Michael Jackson was never the "king of pop." His best records were his first ones, with the Jackson 5; they had a youthful exuberance and represented the next generation of the classic Motown Sound. (Due more to Barry Gordy and his producers and writers than to the performances, I'd wager.) Jackson's most famous records, as a solo artist, certainly sold well, but they weren't groundbreaking. They may have represented the logical culmination of then-current producing and recording techniques, but they didn't push the envelope in any way, shape, or form. You want groundbreaking, you listen to Stevie Wonder or Marvin Gaye. Jackson's stuff was entertaining, but that's it. Not an innovator at all.

Jackson's music was popular, however, for various reasons. Well, it had a good beat and you could dance to it, of course. It also helped to break genre and color lines, especially in the world of MTV and music videos; in this way, Jackson was more of a cultural phenomenon than a musical one. But the songs, the records, they just don't have any staying power. Does his stuff get played on any radio stations today? (Well, other than the 24/7 mournathon we're currently in, that is.) No, it doesn't. The earlier Jackson 5 stuff does, because it endures. "Thriller," "Billie Jean," all those songs, they're easily replaceable. They don't stand out, they're too representative of their time; they simply don't wear well over the years. That's not great music, folks.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, Jackson was a captivating entertainer and dancer. So compare him (probably unfavorably) to Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly, not to Elvis Presley and John Lennon and other true musical innovators. You want musical innovators, talk about Chuck Berry and Little Richard and the Beatles; don't talk the so-called "king of pop." If anything, he was the king of cloying pap. Nothing more than that.

But I don't think he was a king at all, and I'm tired of hearing Michael Jackson talked about as if he really, truly, changed the world of music as we know it. Even his so-called accomplishments were really collaborations with (and driven by) Quincy Jones. What were Jackson's contributions? A few squeaks here and there and the introduction of the moonwalk -- which was itself an appropriation of existing dance steps. I'll give him one thing; he helped to turn pop concerts into singing-and-dancing extravaganzas, complete with synchronized dance steps and a troupe of scantily clad dancers. So we have Michael Jackson to thank for Britney Spears. Oh joy.

I'm sick and tired of the cult of artificial celebrity, which has reached its zenith with the enshrinement of so-called reality show stars like Jon and Kate and all those other losers who never accomplished anything in life other than acting out their pitiful lives in front of the video cameras. Michael Jackson was a talented performer, but nothing more. Let's not treat him as a god on his passing; let's not pay any more attention than that deserved by a has-been hitmaker with some very serious personality disorders. Michael Jackson, meet Frankie Lymon; that's your comparison, right there.

Enough is enough. That's much more than I ever intended to say about Michael Jackson, dead or alive, so I'll just stop now.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

One

2009-05-10T13:49:00.002-04:00

It was just over a year ago that I moved to the Twin Cities, and shortly after that when I got married. That's two one-year anniversaries to celebrate and reflect upon, which I'll try to do here.

First, moving to the Twin Cities. I was a life-long Hoosier, not because of any great love for the place but mainly due to inertia. Central Indiana is an okay and extremely inexpensive place to live. The people are nice enough, although there's a decided lack of education and respect for intelligence among many. There's also little to no arts scene, and in Indiana, Republicans rule. So there wasn't much to miss when I moved, other than friends and family.

The Minneapolis/St. Paul area is definitely a much larger and more sophisticated metropolis than the Indianapolis area. Lots of great restaurants, a terrific music and arts scene, just a general big-city vibe that Indy aspires to but has never reached. The people up here are, perhaps, nicer than the folks in Indiana, although I suspect that what they call "Minnesota nice" is really just an advanced form of passive-aggressiveness; they're really nice to your face, but they talk a lot behind your back. Still, it's nice to be around nice people.

That passive-aggressiveness comes out in their driving, however. Nobody up here can negotiate a simple roundabout (not that there are that many up here, especially when compared to Carmel, Indiana, the roundabout capital of the U.S.). Half the time they enter the roundabout then stop halfway through to let someone from the outside in. I want to get out of my car (and I have time to, since traffic has come to a halt), pull them out of theirs, and beat their little pasty white heads against the pavement. I guess I haven't gotten into the Minnesota nice thing much, myself.

The arts scene in the Twin Cities is terrific. My wife and I have seen more music in the past year than I saw in a decade in Indy. They love and support all types of music up here, jazz especially, and the Dakota is the best jazz club I've ever seen. (Better even than Indy's Jazz Kitchen, which I still love.) In the past year we've seen Nanci Griffith, Brian Wilson, Booker T. and the MGs (twice), John Pizzarelli (also twice), James Hunter, Gordon Lightfoot, Manhattan Transfer, Irma Thomas, Ruthie Foster, Lura, and Sophie Milman. (There's so much good stuff up here, I get annoyed at the acts we have to skip because we can't fit them into our schedule.) All were good, but the very best were Brian Wilson and Nanci Griffith, both legends of their own type. Hearing Brian and his wonderful backing band do "God Only Knows" brought a tear to my eye, it was just so perfect. That moment alone made the move to Minneapolis worth it.

Of course, the real reason I moved to the Twin Cities was to get married. My wife Sherry came from Indy, originally, but has been living up here for the past twenty or so years. We've known each other since high school, but hooked up again about three years ago and did two years of very long distance dating. (I put a lot of miles on the old convertible...) I finally talked her into making an honest man of me, and so we got married a year ago April.

Married life is a bit of a change for a 50 year-old bachelor. Not only am I sharing my (new and bigger) house with my wife, I'm also sharing it with her dog, her teenaged son, and, during school breaks, her college-aged daughter. As an added bonus, her younger daughter is going through a divorce, and she and her two toddlers are also living with us. I originally thought a five-bedroom house would be overkill, but now I sometimes wish for even more room.

Room aside, I kind of like having a full house. I really like the grandkids, two year-old Collin and his one year-old sister Hayley. Collin and I are great pals, and he likes to do just about anything he sees me doing. Yeah, Sherry and I spend a lot of time babysitting that we could be spending doing newlywed-type stuff, but I wouldn't give up the time with the kids. After spending a half-century alone, I treasure every single minute with my new family. (For those interested, pics of the grandkids can be found here: Mike and Sherry's Family Pictures)

Sherry has one more child, a daughter who is married and living in Winona, about two hours away. (That's also where the other daughter goes to college, conveniently enough.) So there's one more grandkid in the mix, with a fourth on the way. I wish we could spend more time with little Alethia, but the distance precludes this. Again, I treasure the time we spend with her.

It's a big lifestyle change for me. Friends say I'm either a saint or a crazy person; I admit to the latter, but don't find anything wrong with that. It's a different life, but one I'm trying to live to the fullest. There's less private time, but a lot more love.

What do I miss about my previous life? My Indiana friends, of course. But also the little things, like Cajun food (none at all up here) and my old coffeehouse. During the month of May I tend to miss the goings on at the Speedway, but that hasn't been the same for a decade or more, anyway, so there's less to miss. I don't miss the thickheaded rednecks in my old hometown; I do appreciate the more liberal bent up here, as well as their great enthusiasm for all things social and political. (And Norm Coleman should just give it up and go home, already.)

All in all, it's been a good year. I hope to have many more with my new friends and family here in Minnesota -- and with my old ones in Indiana, too.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Paul Harvey

2009-03-29T16:33:00.003-04:00

The voice of Middle America is gone. Paul Harvey has passed away.

Like many listeners, I first heard Paul Harvey while on family vacations, interminably long trips to Florida or Colorado when I was a youngster. There is absolutely nothing good to say about the flat desolation that is Kansas, other than at twelve sharp you could turn the AM radio a few turns left or right and hear the voice of Paul Harvey. There was a dry stretch while I was in high school and college, but when I got older, I got hooked again, listening to Paul Harvey News & Comment when driving to lunch on almost every Saturday. At a still later date, Paul (along with the pre-merger XM Radio and old Bob & Ray CDs) kept me sane while I was long-distance dating my future Minnesota wife from my home in Indiana. It didn't matter where I was en route, Paul was always on some station somewhere.

I might have disagreed with his politics, but I appreciated the way he presented them. Instead of the bile and hatred that is right-wing talk radio today, Paul was decent and civil, putting his point across without viciously attacking those who disagreed with him. Rush and Sean and all the other blathering heads could learn something from Paul's honorable approach.

What I found most appealing about Paul Harvey was the same thing I appreciated about Johnny Carson. Both men had kind of a Midwestern decency about them. They may have hung out with movie stars and corporate bigwigs, but they didn't act like it or sound like it. Each of them seemed like the guy who lived next door, maybe a special uncle, someone who paid special attention to the old lady standing behind them in line at the grocery store. Paul and Johnny were just as interested in the couple celebrating their 50th anniversary or the old woman who collected potato chips as they were in the short-lived "celebrities" of the day. A true interest in everyone they met or read about, that's the common factor, and the ability to directly relate to their listeners and viewers. I miss that about both of these men.

I certainly will miss having Paul Harvey to listen to on the radio. Even though he wasn't there every day in the past few years (illness, old age, and the death of his wife cut into his schedule), noontime was always a little special when that booming voice came over my car radio speakers. I was always ready to "stand by for news," and my day wasn't good until Paul said it was -- with his trademark long pause. He may have been a product of another time, but there must have been something worthwhile about those days to produce someone as interested in and genuinely excited about human affairs as Paul Harvey.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Mortgages

2009-02-25T16:09:00.002-05:00

The whole mortgage crisis has me of multiple minds. On one hand, I'm not that hip on bailing out folks who made bad decisions and got in over their heads with overly-large mortgages. On the other hand, I'm also not that hip on forcing families out on the street and leaving large chunks of real estate to sit vacant in neighborhoods across the U.S. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation.

Excessive rhetoric by the media doesn't help things. In particular, there's little good to be said about the inflammatory comments by CNBC ranting head Rick Santelli about the Obama administration subsidizing the mortgages of "losers" and promoting bad behavior. Except, of course, that there's more than a little truth in the content behind the blather. Forget the tone and the source, and you're faced with the reality that it's the folks who screwed up who will probably get bailed out, while those of us who didn't (or haven't yet) screwed up have to keep paying our often-excessive mortgage payments. As a guy who has dutifully paid his various mortgages on time for the past twenty years or so, that kind of burns my ass. I play by the rules and don't even get a thank you note, while the bums who skip their payments get a hand out -- subsidized by me! Thanks, Big Government, for the appreciation.

On the other hand, I have much sympathy for those folks who either got talked into ill-considered mortgage products or who've recently lost their jobs and may soon lose their homes. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and we should do something about that. I'd rather these folks get a little help than a boot out the front door.

On the other other hand, lots of folks who took out excessive mortgages really shouldn't have. They should have known they were getting in over their heads, whether we're talking lower-priced housing or a second McMansion. Sometimes it's okay to rent and most often there's little to be gained from trying to keep up with the Joneses. Some fools, rich and poor, deserve what they get.

But not all, and certainly not the folks we know, and most certainly not our neighbors. Thus the appeal of some sort of bailout for these mortgage holders.

Still, I'm left with the feeling of being royally screwed by being a good on-time payer all these years. It's not that I begrudge the help to those who need it, but what about me?

This, I think, is the difference between insensitive blowhards such as Santelli and more reasonable guys like myself. Calling all families with mortgage problems "losers" is extremely unsympathetic to those who really are the victims of misfortune. I'm sympathetic to their plight -- I'd just like a little consideration for doing what I was supposed to be doing all these years. (And I'm also aware that anyone -- me included -- could have similar misfortune and need similar assistance in the future. There but for fortune, and all that.)

What I'd like to see is some sort of plan that helps everyone, not just those in default. I'm not sure what that would be, but I'd lean towards some sort of universal principal and/or rate reduction. (I'd be real happy refinancing at 4% or so, if anyone's listening...) That sort of plan would benefit those currently underwater as well as those of us who've played by the rules all this time. Yeah, and maybe a few "losers" too, but that's what happens when you cast a wide net.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

2008

2009-01-08T16:47:00.003-05:00

The old year is past and the new year is upon us. Time to reflect briefly on the good things and bad things of 2008.

Bad things first, which include:

The economy, the continuing military excursion in Iraq, the continuing encroachment on our individual liberties, and the ongoing enfeeblement of the press. Thanks, George W!
Starbucks closing my local store. (And closing my former local store back in Indiana.) Not that I'm a big fan of corporate anything, but it's surprising how even a poorly performing Starbucks location forms its own tight community. My store is sorely missed not just by me (primarily for its convenient location) but, more importantly, by the regulars who made it their home. Home is where you find it, and dozens of people lost their home when the corporate office downsized.
The "merger" of XM and Sirius satellite radio -- more accurately, a hostile takeover of my beloved XM by the smaller and less-successful Sirius. Gone are my favorite personalities, especially those on what was formerly my favorite XM channel, Soul Street: Bobby Bennett, Dr. Nick, and Leigh Hamilton. The late lamented Soul Street was, hands down, the best-programmed channel I've heard on any radio service, period, and it was criminal for Sirius to dump it so unceremoniously. Not only do I miss the DJs' expertise and intelligent conversation, the replacement channel (Sirius' Soul Town) leans too heavily on crappy 70s funk and not enough on the sweet 50s and 60s soul (including a lot of obscure tracks) that made Soul Street so great. Other favorite channels have also bit the dust, and the survivors seem to have shortened and more frequently repeated playlists. While I did pick up a few decent new channels (Little Steven's Underground Garage, The Bridge, and the real NPR), the "new" Sirius XM sucks almost as bad as terrestrial radio. I'm just glad I'm no longer driving 1200 or so miles a month, so I'm not forced to listen to this crap.
The passing of some of my favorite public people. Chief among those these are musicians Levi Stubbs (of the Four Tops) and Isaac Hayes, actor Paul Newman, the legendary Bette Page, and author Donald E. Westlake, one of the most talented and prolific writers of any genre. They are all missed.
Way too much snow in Minnesota.

Good things about 2009 include:

The fall of the crony capitalistic dictatorship of Bush and Cheney and the election of Barack Obama. Of course, Obama inherits one of the biggest messes in history, but he's a smart guy who surrounds himself with smart guys -- a good start, at least.
With the election of Obama, the notion that it's okay if not cool to be smart. I'm tired of this country's ignorance worship; it's time we looked up to those folks who actually know what they're doing.
The Dark Knight and Iron Man -- finally, two really good comic book movies. (And I can't wait to see Watchmen when it releases later in 2009...)
My favorite albums of the year, including the charming Volume One from She and Him (Zooey Deschanel and M. Ward); Brian Wilson's latest near-masterpiece, That Lucky Old Sun; Duffy's Brit-soul Rockferry; Shelby Lynne's tribute to the great Dusty Springfield, Just a Little Lovin'; and my personal favorite, James Hunter's infectious blue-eyed soul on The Hard Way. We had the personal pleasure of seeing both Brian Wilson and James Hunter in concert this year, and both were joyous experiences.
Getting married to the love of my life and enjoying family life, including time with all my new step-grandchildren. (See my other blog for pics of us and the kids.) It was a bit of a change after 50 years of bachelorhood, but well worth it.

And that was my year, and my opinions. Reasonable minds, as always, may disagree.

Change

2008-11-10T17:24:00.003-05:00

Well, it finally happened. Barack Obama actually won the election and handily, surprising all the cynics and curmudgeons and worry-worts among us. Apparently our country isn't quite as ignorant or racist or whatnot as one sometimes is led to think. Good for us! (Although ignorance and racism and whatnot do still exist -- as evidenced by anyone eavesdropping on those old guys talking in the corner booth at Denny's on any random Tuesday morning. But I digress...)

Obama's victory is historic for any number of reasons. The first black president, the first post-baby boomer president, and so on and so forth. And whether the vote was one for hope and change or one final repudiation of the Bush/Cheney near-dictatorship, what we get is the opportunity to correct all that has gone wrong over the past eight years and set a new course into the 21st century. That's a good thing.

What pisses me off, however, are all those conservatives and Republicans and media pundits who keep insisting that Obama has to "govern to the center" and be all bi-partisan and such. These are the same people who insisted that Bush had a "mandate" with much smaller popular and electoral vote majorities in 2000 and 2004, and set about ramrodding their ultra-conservative agenda down everyone's throats. Democrats, liberals, and even moderates were marginalized in particularly ruthless fashion; the Bushies didn't even give lip service to that whole "govern to the center" and bi-partisan thing. Bush said that since he won he got to do whatever he want, the other 49.5% of the country be damned. And look what happened.

So now the same bastards who locked the Democrats away for the past eight years now want those same Democrats to play nice with them and include them in all their major decisions. Fuck that shit, I say. There is no reason at all for Obama and the Dems to give the defeated minority the time of day; why should they treat the righties any better than the righties treated them for the past eight years. What goes around comes around, my friends; karma demands retribution.

But we're a "center right" nation, the righties argue. Oh no, we're not, I reply. This supposedly "center right" nation just voted the supposedly most liberal member of the United States Senate into the presidency; the supposedly "center right" nation is also in support of supposedly liberal issues such as universal health care and against staunch conservative issues as abortion bans. No matter what the pundits might say, the facts are clear that this is a center left nation, a land of closet progressives with socialist leanings. Obama should keep this clearly in mind as he moves forward, and not be tempted to placate the whining minority.

The conservative elite have a lot of balls, I'll give them that. They take a slim win and call it a mandate, then take a major loss as a basis for co-governance with the winning side. The real winners -- Obama and the American people -- shouldn't listen to this massive spin. To the winners go the spoils, to the losers go four years (at least) in the political wilderness. Let the Republicans deal with the fact that they're the ones that are out of touch; the rest of us have more important work to do rebuilding our country. That's the real change ahead.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Obama

2008-10-30T14:47:00.003-04:00

This election cycle has been both dispiriting and inspiring. Dispiriting for the negative tone of the McCain campaign, along with the rumors and innuendo and lies and outright racism on the part of many ignorant conservatives. Inspiring for the support of Obama's uplifting message of hope and populist redemption, along with a long-needed support of the middle class.

I started this campaign with much respect for McCain, who even if he didn't align with me on all the issues, at least seemed to have an independent integrity. I've lost all that respect for McCain since then, due to his opportunistic flip-flopping on key issues, embrace of the nut-wing social conservative right, selection of the extremely under-qualified Sarah Palin as his running mate, and overall willingness to do practically anything to get elected. It's one thing to have the ambition, another to pursue that ambition in an honorable manner. The John McCain of the 2008 campaign is not an honorable man.

Then there's Palin. What was going through his mind (or his advisers' minds) with that selection? At first blush, the woman seemed like another petty small-town politician, not too far removed from the mayor of Burnsville, Minnesota, my new home town. (For whom I will not be voting next week.) But Palin's a petty small-town politician with big ambitions -- and the ability to fire up a crowd of ignorant, small-minded racist trash. She's like the cheerleader from hell, no ideas of her own beyond advancing to the next level, by whatever means necessary. It's kind of like George Bush in a skirt, but amped up a couple of levels. I would fear for our nation if she were in any position of power.

The hero of this campaign is Barack Obama. His is an inspiring story, a rags to riches climb from impoverished childhood with a single mother to editor of the Harvard Law Review to United States Senator and hopefully to President. He didn't come from a four-star military background or an Ivy League family; like his equally inspiring running mate, Obama is one of us who made good. It really pisses me off when the blathering right tries to paint him as an elitist; he's really the culmination of the American dream.

That he's done all he's done is even more remarkable when you consider his race and his name. A black man has to work twice as hard in America to achieve any level of success; having a Muslim-sounding name certainly didn't help, either. But Obama overcame all his disadvantages and is now poised to claim the highest office in the land. Remarkable.

That's assuming that he actually wins on Tuesday. The polls all say he will, but there's still a lot that can go wrong -- from a racist backlash to the Republicans outright stealing the thing via election fraud, suppressed votes, and easily tampered-with electronic voting machines. It's not over till it's over, which is why all Obama supporters must keep up their efforts until every last vote is counted.

And here's one more thing I like about Obama: He's made it cool to be smart. With the Republicans pandering to those with little education and even less ambition, and society seemingly being prejudiced against smart people, Obama's education and intelligence is a shining light. We need to admire and reward intelligence, the way other countries do, instead of celebrating ignorance and lack of accomplishment. Here's hoping that Obama can lead by example and make our country just a little bit smarter.

So make sure you get off your ass and get out and vote on November 4th. My vote will go to Obama and Biden, and I hope yours will too; I earnestly believe that they represent the voice of change this country dearly needs.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Levi

2008-10-18T17:46:00.002-04:00

Levi Stubbs passed away yesterday. A great voice has been silenced.

Levi was the lead singer for the Four Tops, one of the most successful groups of the Motown era. His voice was commanding, plaintive, soulfully emotive. You could hear pain and anguish and just a little hope when he sang; there was no more distinctive voice in his or any era.

He was my favorite male singer of the rock era. (Favorite female rock-era singer: Dusty Springfield. Favorite pre-rock singers: Mel Torme and Ella Fitzgerald.) I wanted to use the Tops' "I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie Honey Bunch)" as the recessional music at our wedding (it's the perfect tempo for strolling down the aisle -- plus I love the song), but my wife vetoed it; we settled on a Stevie Wonder tune instead, which was fine, but not a Tops song.

And there were so many great Tops tunes, most written by the premiere songwriting team of Holland-Dozier-Holland, all backed up by the pitch-perfect Funk Brothers, and all featuring the gospel shout baritone of Levi Stubbs. Remember them all: "Baby, I Need Your Loving," "It's the Same Old Song," "Ain't No Woman (Like the One I've Got)," "Reach Out (I'll Be There)," "Standing in the Shadows of Love," "Bernadette" (with its ground-breaking James Jamerson bass line), and exquisite covers of "If I Were a Carpenter" and "Walk Away Renee." Plus many, many more, classics all, all songs that hold up nearly a half-century later. I can listen to the Tops all day and all night and not tire of them.

(To honor his memory, here's a clip of the Four Tops singing "Baby, I Need Your Loving" from 1965. Enjoy.)

The Tops were unique in that they stayed intact with original members for so long. Levi and Duke and Obie and Lawrence were the Four Tops from 1954 until Lawrence's passing in 1997. The Temps didn't stay intact for near that long (20+ members and still counting), nor did the Supremes. But the Tops were the Tops, musical soul mates from beginning to end.

I had the good fortune of catching the Tops in Las Vegas in the early 1990s. They were on a double-bill with the Four Seasons (Four Tops/Four Seasons -- get it?), and it looked to be a standard Vegas lounge gig. It wasn't. Oh, the Four Seasons were as lame as you can imagine (and even then Frankie Valli couldn't hit the high notes), but the Tops brought the house down. The show was super high energy, nonstop hits, everybody dancing in the aisles and on their seats. It was a joyous noise, propelled by Levi and that voice. There was nothing like it -- and there probably never will be.

It saddens me to see the great performers of my generation getting old and passing on. Isaac Hayes a month or so ago, Levi Stubbs just yesterday, who's next? I don't want to know.

Anyway, here's to Levi Stubbs. I will miss his voice.

Race

2008-10-13T16:13:00.004-04:00

By all accounts, Barack Obama should be trouncing John McCain's ass something fierce. Historically low approval ratings for the current Prez, general dislike of anything incumbent or Republican, weariness of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the economy spiraling towards a Not-So-Great Depression... anybody running as a Democrat ought to be up by 15 or 20 points by now. Yes, Obama is starting to approach a double-digit lead, but that's recent and still not as big as you might imagine. The fact that McCain is still in the running, to me, speaks to a single issue.

Race.

Yes, there are some people who prefer McCain to Obama on policy issues, and some on "leadership." There are also the die-hard Republicans who would never switch sides, those closet cases with Daddy issues who always gravitate towards the older guy, and some older voters who identify more with a pre-Baby Boomer than a post one. But there is also a disturbingly large segment of the population, both young and old, who would never vote for a black man. They may couch their opposition in terms of "character," rail about Obama's past associates, or ask vague questions about "do we know who is is?," but at the core they're voting against Obama because they're racist. There is no other explanation.

Even in our supposedly enlightened society, racism still exists, and I see evidence of it daily. Relatives who shall remain nameless persist in spreading scurrilous emails that call Obama a terrorist, a Muslim, the anti-Christ, you name it. A surprising number of people consent to be interviewed on camera to say they'd never vote for a black man (although they often use a more insulting phrase). "He's not like us" is just a euphemism for saying he's back and you're white and you hate those blacks something fierce. Far too many ignorant people in America today still feel that way, some quite strongly and perhaps violently so. I worry for Obama's safety should he actually get elected.

Ignorance breeds prejudice and racism, and there are a lot of ignorant voters out there. Witness the near-rabid crowds at Republican rallies of late, crying out "terrorist" and "kill him" and likely worse epithets that the news media is self-censoring. You don't see any dark faces at these rallies; Sarah Palin's crowds, especially, give off the aura of a lynch mob or Nazi rally. It's frightening.

Palin may be over her head in lots of ways, but in this instance she's the perfect Nazi cheerleader, inciting the crowds with whatever propaganda she's been fed; I expect no less from someone who can deliver no more. I do expect more, however, from McCain. He's always seemed an honorable if somewhat curmudgeonly sort, and he should be better than all this. Or at least the old McCain was; the new 2008-edition John McCain appears to be the lowest form of pandering politician, doing anything his advisors suggest will help him win.

Granted, McCain has belatedly started tamping down some of the worst rhetoric. At a rally this week in Lakeville, MN (just a few miles from where I now live), an old woman in the town hall crowd said she wasn't voting for Obama because he was an "Arab." (It's sad when they can't even get their racism straight...) McCain stepped in to correct her and call Obama an honorable family man, but the crowd was already heavy in its blood lust and booed him. That tells you something.

I'd have a lot more respect for McCain if, at the upcoming final debate, he looked directly into the camera and said, "My friends, Senator Obama and I have some legitimate disagreements, and I think I'd be a better President than him. But if you're voting for me only because my opponent is a black man, I don't want your vote. Feel free stay home on election day, but don't vote for me because I'm white and Senator Obama is black. I don't want your racist votes."

That would turn a few heads, help to quiet the racist uprising (a little), and bring a much welcome note of civility to this increasingly uncivil election. I don't think it'll happen, but wouldn't it be pretty to think so?

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Crisis

2008-09-24T15:48:00.005-04:00

Anyone who is surprised by the current financial crisis hasn't been paying attention. From Wall Street's financial mavens to Main Street's craven mortgage brokers, everybody's been playing a giant confidence game. It's a pyramid scheme built on a base of bad loans, a multi-level marketing plan gone one level too far. In the game of risk vs. reward, the risk got too high -- because the rewards were so large as to be irresistible. And you and I, fellow taxpayers, are expected to bail out those gamblers who bet and lost billions (if not trillions) of dollars they didn't really have.

This financial crisis was totally predictable. All bubbles burst, eventually; a house of cards inevitably falls. That the high-stakes gambling and sub-prime lending went on so long speaks as much to unbridled greed as it does to the lack of governmental oversight. Somebody should have stepped in and said "no," but nobody did. In the Bush world, big government is bad when industries need regulating -- but good when bailouts are needed.

Should we, the taxpayers, bail out those firms that gambled and lost billions dealing with various forms of financial securities? Put it another way, would a big Las Vegas casino step in and write a big check to its biggest losers? I don't think so; you place your bets and you accept the consequences. The gamblers on Wall Street should be held no less accountable than their counterparts in Sin City.

If anybody needs bailing out, it's the consumers who were flim-flammed into taking out mortgages that they didn't need or couldn't afford. How many inexperienced potential homeowners got talked into interest-only mortgages that would blow up in their faces a few years down the pike? How many naive current homeowners were tricked into taking out home equity loans for 125% of their property's value? One could argue that these people signed their own fates, but with so many snake oil salesmen masquerading as mortgage brokers, somebody should have overseeing what was going down.

Yes, it all comes down to greed. And as many have stated, you can't legislate greed. (Some have even gone so far as to say that greed is a good thing, that it drives our capitalist society; I might argue with that.) But here's the thing: Unbridled greed does great harm. So while we can't regulate greed, we can control its effects. When outsized greed affects individuals, markets, and countries to this degree, we need to put regulations into place that limits the harm this greed can do.

In doing so, however, we don't need to put even more unfettered control in the hands of the Executive Branch. Excuse me for being just a little bit paranoid, but could this whole "crisis" be just another excuse for consolidating Executive power?

Exhibit A: Section 8 of the proposed bailout plan, which says that the Secretary of the Treasury (an appointed -- not elected -- official in the Executive Branch) has total unanswerable control. Here it is in full:

Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Got that? The new Financial Czar can do anything he wants and nobody -- not Congress, not the Supreme Court, not nobody -- can question him. Sound familiar? It's a common refrain in the Bush presidency.

So maybe the government does need to inject some funds into the financial markets. Maybe some firms do need some sort of bailout. (Heck, some individuals need a financial helping hand, too.) And maybe (or most definitely) we do need more stringent controls over high-stakes financial gambling going forward. But we don't need to further eviscerate the Constitution to give the Executive branch unstoppable powers to deal with this real or imagined crisis. Let Congress take its time and put together a plan that helps those individuals that truly need help -- and doesn't reward the fat cat financial "wizards" who gambled too much and unwisely.

But that's just my opinion. Reasonable minds may disagree.

Rectify

2008-07-02T16:31:00.002-04:00

In my last post I noted some of the many things that have gone wrong during my move from Indianapolis to Minneapolis. One of the major things I mentioned was the demise of my prized Media Center PC, which suffered from its second power supply problem in three years -- a big enough problem to deem the entire unit virtually unrepairable, or at least unrepairable for a reasonable cost.

At the time, the folks at Niveus said that the power supply took out the motherboard, that the old motherboard was no longer available, and that that meant I'd need to replace the power supply, motherboard, video board, audio board, you name it, for a price somewhere in the $2500-$3000 range. Given the number of problems over the years (caused, I suspect, by components running too hot in the silent, fanless chassis), I decided against repair, instead opting for a new PC custom-built by my home theater firm, Connect Home Theater.

Since that post, I've been pleasantly surprised by the response from the folks at Niveus, particularly VP of Marketing Brian Paper. I've always had a good relationship with Brian and Niveus, and when he heard of my plight, he offered to upgrade the entire PC for free. That, as they say, was an offer I couldn't refuse -- a $3,000 upgrade for free. So, after making sure that the folks at Connect Home Theater wouldn't be left in the lurch, I gave Brian the okay to proceed.

The "upgrade" involved shipping me an entirely new PC -- the latest Niveus Denali model. That included a 1TB hard disk (twice as big as the old one) and 2GB of memory (twice as much as the old one), along with the requisite new motherboard, video card, audio card, power supply, and the rest. Suffice to say, the new model performs superbly, and is just as quiet as the old one.

My only concern with sticking with a Niveus model was the early component failure issue, which I surmised was caused by too much heat build up in the unit. (My old PC got hot enough to fry an egg on . That's not an exaggeration; it needed plenty of ventilation, and even then got hot to the touch.) Brian assured me that while that might have been a problem with a PC made three years ago, today's components run much cooler out of the box, plus their cooling technology has improved. Turns out he's right; the new unit runs much cooler than the old one (warm, not hot), and hasn't given me a lick of trouble in the month I've had it back.

So here's a welcome exception to all those things that turn me curmudgeonly -- a company that stands behind their products, bends over backwards for their customers, and improves their products over time. Thanks, Niveus!

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Awry

2008-05-06T17:01:00.006-04:00

With moving, marriage, and such over the past few months, there has been ample opportunity for things to go awry. These are the things that bring out my curmudgeonliness, as most derive from simple human carelessness -- which, these days, is abundant.

What follows, then, is a simple cataloging of the major mistakes that have befallen me in my recent move from Indiana to Minnesota, for your reading pleasure.

We'll start with the firm that moved me from Indiana, which did a relatively decent job -- with a few exceptions. First, they moved three halogen floor lamps as-is, without first disassembling them; the result was three very bent and twisted floor lamps. In addition, they lost/broke/misplaced the coasters underneath my dining room table, requiring a makeshift repair on our end.

The firm that moved my wife (less than a mile down the road) did a much worse job. Their mistakes included somehow breaking the mechanism on my stepson's futon bed, as well as losing all the screws and related hardware for my stepdaughter's daybed and refusing to make good on the replacement, necessitating the purchase of a new unit.

Then we have the furniture, of which we purchased a bunch. Of the two swivel chairs we purchased for our new sun room, one arrived with a broken/missing caster; the rather inefficient fix was not to replace the single caster, but to give us a completely new chair.

We also ordered a new desk for my office, which took almost two months to arrive. When it was delivered the left-facing return we ordered was actually a right-facing one packed inside a box marked for the left-facing version. It took another two weeks for the correctly labeled return to arrive.

A similar mislabeling occurred with the 125-gallon saltwater aquarium we purchased. We ordered the whole setup in black, but when the fish store owner opened up the stand marked "black," he discovered an oak-finished stand inside, instead. We're still waiting for the black replacement.

We had two home theater systems installed (upstairs and down), as well as smaller systems installed in my wife's office and our bedroom. When one of the installers went to connect the audio receiver in the bedroom to the new in-wall speakers, he discovered that his fellow installer had forgotten to actually install the speakers; the grilles were there and the speaker wire was run, but there weren't any speakers behind the grilles!

The worst situation, however, involved my beloved Media Center PC, which houses my 1300-CD music collection in digital format. It was the very last part of our main home theater system to be connected, and when we plugged it in it went "poof." (Literally, that was the sound it made: "Poof!") The home theater firm sent it back to Niveus, the manufacturer, who confirmed that the power supply had gone bad. They also told me that the power supply had taken out the mother board with it, and that the mother board was an older type no longer available, and that that meant we had to replace the audio card, video card, and so on along with the power supply and the mother board -- easily a $2500-$3000 repair. (Although they also offered to let me trade in my old model on a current one for just $5000 --what a bargain!)

Given that this was the second bad power supply (and the third problem requiring factory repairs) in three years, I decided against the repair, instead opting for the home theater firm (Connect Home Theater) to custom build me a newer and more powerful model for just $2499. While I appreciate what Niveus was trying to achieve with a fanless, totally silent living room PC (and also appreciate the help they've given me over the years), I think their model is flawed; a fanless PC simply runs too hot, resulting in premature component failure. For me, the whole situation means that I'm now two months into the move and still don't have my music system up and running -- although I will be $2500 over my initial budget.

I'm sure few of you care about my little annoyances. That said, they are annoyances, and most could have been avoided with a little bit more in the way of quality control. And that's why they're so annoying.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Moving

2008-04-25T15:45:00.005-04:00

I haven't posted in a few months, because I've been extremely busy. In addition to my normal hyperloaded writing schedule, I moved to Minnesota, got married, and went on a honeymoon. That's two months or so of solid activity, from which I'm only just now recovering.

I'll leave the marriage bit for a future post, and focus for now on the moving part of the equation. First off, know that I've lived in the same city for all of my 50 years; this was a move out of state, which made it a big deal. While I did a fair share of moving from apartment to apartment when I was younger, I've lived for the past 16 years in the same house -- which means I simply didn't have much current experience with the moving thing.

I made it easy on myself by hiring movers to do the whole thing -- packing, loading, driving, etc. That was a good thing; what might have taken me weeks took them a few days. Luckily for me, the only damage I've noted (so far) was in three halogen floor lamps, which arrived somewhat bent out of shape. No big deal; the big stuff made it through relatively unscathed.

I moved from a 1700 sq. ft. one-story house to a 4000 sq. ft. two-story with a full basement. The extra space is nice (in spite of the stairs), especially with all the other people in the house. For the first time since high school, I'm sharing my abode with others; it's not that bad, really. My new wife and I have no problem sharing space, of course, and the house is big enough that the two kids and one grandkid sharing the house with us have their own private spaces. I don't even mind that the grandkid picked my office and my music room as his two favorite spaces; it's easy enough to close the doors when I don't want him in there.

While sharing the (bigger) space has worked out well, sharing stuff has proven more problematic. Quite frankly, I'm not used to sharing. It's not that I'm selfish (although I probably am), it's just that everything in my old house was my stuff -- I knew exactly what it was and where it was and no one else touched it. Not so anymore; it seems that everybody touches everything. I have to get used to that.

An example. In my old place, my kitchen refrigerator was filled almost exclusively with liquids. (I don't cook, so why buy food?) In the new place, the kitchen refrigerator is filled with food -- everybody's food. So we have a spare refrigerator in the garage for liquids, and I get half of one very short shelf in the main refrigerator for my personal stuff (still mostly liquids). Is that too much to ask, half of one shelf? But still, half the time someone has put something on my half a shelf, typically some sort of baby food or yogurt container. Can I not have my space?

But that's a minor thing. We've spent a lot of time and money fixing up the place to be our place. It's a massive house with a great big great room, complete with 20 foot ceilings and a floor-to-ceiling custom fireplace. We ended up buying almost all new furniture for the place, and splitting my old home theater system in two to service two different floors. I like my new music room, which is enough bigger than my old one to finally let me be comfortable. We got rid of the previous owner's basement bar setup and replaced it with built-in bookshelves for a nice little library, and we're in the process of setting up a 125 gallon saltwater aquarium. Lots of money for all this, but I like to get everything out of the way at once -- if I want it done, I want it done now, not a year or two from now.

All this (plus the wedding and honeymoon) has occupied a lot of my time, hence the lack of posting. In addition, I've had to get used to living in Minnesota, the land where winter never stops. (They're talking about snow flurries tomorrow -- on April 26th!) It was nice, however, when the main snowpack melted and we finally got a chance to see the yard we purchased. It's a big half-acre, which means lots of mowing and such this summer. Fortunately, we got a riding lawnmower as part of the deal, and it has a cupholder, so that should work out okay.

In any case, I'm trying to hone my Minnesota accent and learning to drive under the speed limit (something no one in Indiana ever does). The populace is stereotypically nice up here, and they've made the move easier. So has my wife, of course -- she being the reason I moved up here in the first place. I think I like it.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Dusty

2008-02-08T09:52:00.000-05:00

There seems to be a resurgence of interest in Dusty Springfield of late, in particular her landmark 1969 album, Dusty in Memphis. This is good.

Dusty in Memphis was a great album; it's on my top five all-time album list. That's due in part to Dusty's sensual white soul vocals, of course, but also due to the choice of material. This was back in the day when singers didn't feel obligated to write their own material, which meant they chose songs from professional songwriters -- almost always of a higher caliber than that from non-trained writers. In Dusty's case, she had a knack for choosing first-rate songs from the top songwriters of the day. Or maybe the top songwriters singled her out for their best tunes. Whatever the case, one can't argue the results.

On Dusty in Memphis one finds tunes by Burt Bacharach and Hal David ("In the Land of Make Believe"), Carole King and Gerry Goffin ("So Much Love," "Don't Forget About Me," "No Easy Way Down," "I Can't Make It Alone"), Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil ("Just a Little Lovin'", Randy Newman ("Just One Smile," "I Don't Want to Hear It Anymore"), and Alan and Marilyn Bergman with Michel Legrand ("Windmills of Your Mind"). Plus the superb "Son of a Preacher Man" (by John Hurley and Ronnie Wilkins) and "Breakfast in Bed" (Eddie Hinton and Donnie Fritts). Not a ringer among them.

Among all these great songs, my personal favorite is Newman's "I Don't Want to Hear It Anymore," which is just heartbreaking. Of course, Dusty delivers on the heartbreak, just as she does on the sweet seduction of "Breakfast in Bed" and the sublime Southern sexuality of "Son of a Preacher Man." For a white chick from England, she had a lot of soul.

Believe it or not, we're coming up on the 40th anniversary of Dusty in Memphis; the album was released in 1969 to much fanfare but disappointing sales. Like many of pop music's best works, Dusty in Memphis gained stature over the years, eventually being recognized for the classic that it is. I expect we can see some sort of special 40th anniversary re-release next year, complete with alternate takes, bonus tracks, and a long-lost recording of Dusty putting on her mascera. While I welcome a remastered version, I'm not all that hot on "expanded" versions of classic albums; I want to hear the album as it was originally released, not tarnished by unwanted bonus tracks. If you have bonuses, put them on a separate disc; let the original album end as it was intended.

Perhaps it's the pending anniversary which has inspired the current attention to Dusty and her landmark album. It started last year, with Breakfast in Bed, a somewhat overlooked CD by Joan Osborne that was obviously inspired by Dusty and Dusty in Memphis. I found that CD ultimately disappointing, despite the choice of material and Osborne's inspired vocals; the production and arrangements had too much of a 2000-era sheen and approach instead of the classic understated accompaniment that the collection of soul tunes required.

A much better tribute is Shelby Lynne's Just a Little Lovin', just released to much publicity and acclaim. I've been a Shelby Lynne fan since her extraordinary 2000 CD, I Am Shelby Lynne, and this new album cements her reputation as a Dusty-insprired songstress. On this album she takes several songs from Dusty in Memphis, along with a selection of other Dusty tunes, and makes them her own. The album has a Norah Jones-type vibe; the instrumentation is laid back and stripped down, which lets Lynne's sultry vocals come to the forefront. It's a worthy tribute to a great vocalist and a great album, yet more than stands on its own as a showcase for one of today's most talented artists.

As with the original Dusty in Memphis, of course, much of the appeal of Just a Little Lovin' lies in its selection of quality material; again, all the best songwriters of the 1960s are represented. Great songs sung by a great singer; that will always be a winning combination.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Archer

2007-12-28T20:50:00.000-05:00

Right now I'm a happy man. One of the reasons I'm happy is that Vintage Crime/Black Lizard has just re-released two more long-out-of-print Ross Macdonald novels, The Doomsters and The Barbarous Coast. This follows the re-release back in July of The Ivory Grin and The Way Some People Die. It's almost criminal that these and several other Macdonald novels have been out of print so long, in some cases close to twenty years. These are classic American detective fiction, but more than that; they are books that bridged the genre gap into actual literary fiction.

Ross Macdonald (real name: Kenneth Millar) was the third of the seminal Big Three writers in the hard-boiled detective genre. First came Dashiell Hammett (The Maltese Falcon, The Thin Man), who established the form from its roots in the pulp magazines of the day. He was followed by Raymond Chandler (The Big Sleep, Farewell My Lovely), who combined Hammett's hard-boiled nature with a not-so-subtle romanticism. But it was Macdonald, through his alter ego Lew Archer, who added a psychological dimension to the standard detective thriller and turned it into true literature.

Unlike Hammett's all-business Continental Op or Chandler's slumming angel Philip Marlowe, Macdonald's Lew Archer was as much psychologist or father confessor as he was a hard-boiled private detective. Archer was compelled to get to the reasons why the crime was committed, even if that took him back multiple generations within a family.

As a critic once noted, Macdonald's books aren't so much who-dunnits as why-dunnits. Starting with 1959's The Galton Case, Macdonald probed the psychological depths of cross-generational family sagas; the sins of the father (or mother) were often visited on or repeated by the son (or daughter). Archer wasn't necessarily out to bring the criminal to justice or to avenge the victim, but to discover the truth and perhaps bring a little peace to the current generation. As Macdonald had Archer say in one of his cases, "I have a secret passion for mercy. But justice is what keeps happening to people."

I find the Lew Archer novels to be among my favorite novels, period -- no genre qualification necessary. I'd put Sleeping Beauty, The Underground Man, or The Goodbye Look up against anything from Hemingway or Steinbeck; they have the depth and intelligence and heart of true literature. I tend to reread two or three Macdonald books every year; having some previously unread (and hard-to-find) books re-released makes for a joyous occasion, in my book.

It's a shame, however, that Macdonald hasn't stayed in the eye of the reading public the same way that Hammett and Chandler have. Perhaps it's because there hasn't really been a faithful film adaption of Macdonald's best works; the slightly off-kilter Harper and The Drowning Pool (in which Paul Newman changed Lew Archer to Lew Harper and played him in an uncharacteristic rakish fashion) don't have the visceral impact of the movie versions of The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep -- two of the best movie mysteries (and most faithful adaptions) ever. (And, I suppose, Paul Newman is no Humphrey Bogart.) Of course, Macdonald's books are so layered that it may be impossible to condense them for the screen. In any case, it's a shame that so many of Macdonald's books have been out-of-print for so long. (Fortunately, Macdonald's final book, The Blue Hammer, along with The Instant Enemy, are due to be re-released on April 8, 2008 -- place your Amazon orders now!)

(The fact that Macdonald was the logical successor to Hammett and Chandler begs the question who was the successor to Macdonald. Some have granted Robert B. Parker that honor; as much as I love Parker and Spenser, his fictional creation, I'm less convinced over time of the heritage. More likely, there is no natural successor to Hammett; with the end of the Archer books, the detective genre splintered into multiple sub-genres and authors, each worthy on their own merits but none advanced the entire genre as the Big Three had.)

All that said, having two "new" Macdonald books to read makes me very happy. I hope you share in my delight by going out and purchasing your own copies of The Doomsters and The Barbarous Coast -- as well as special ordering any other book from Macdonald's distinguished catalog.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

At War

2007-11-04T09:56:00.000-05:00

President Bush likes to justify everything he does by reminding us that America is "at war." Just this week he used that phrase to attack Democrats in Congress who are opposing both his nomination for attorney general and his requests for additional military spending:

"Politicians who deny that we are at war are either being disingenuous or naive. Either way, it is dangerous for our country. We are at war, and we cannot win this war by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist."

Those are the president's words, not mine. Because, you see, I don't think we're at war -- and I'm neither disingenuous or naive.

Yes, our troops are in a war zone in Iraq and thousands of them have been killed as a result. But just because a few hundred thousand troops have been injected into a foreign country's civil war doesn't mean that the country of America is at war with that country, or those individual factions that are warring between themselves. If we're truly at war, who do we surrender to if we lose? Who surrenders to us if we win? In fact, what does winning mean?

If America was at war, you and I here on the home front would know it. We'd have food and gasoline rationing; our factories would be converted to churning out munitions instead of Mustangs. More noticeable would be the draft; millions of our sons and daughters would be conscripted by the military. Every family in America would be affected.

But none of those things are happening. There is no rationing, there is no draft. The average American feels not one whit of hardship over this so-called "war" we're in. Our country is not being attacked; our country is not in peril. This is a military action of convenience, not a war of survival.

Perhaps the president, when he refers to us being "at war," is not referring to the action in Iraq, but rather what he has variously called the "war on terrorists," "war on terrorism," or "war on Islamofascism." These are "wars" like the "war on drugs" is a war, wars perhaps of ideas but not of realities. After all, terrorism is but a tactic, and one cannot go to war against a tactic. In addition, we're not fighting all terrorists, only those who might be targeting our country; we're not arming to defeat those using terrorist tactics in Northern Ireland, for example.

As to the so-called war on Islamofascism, I don't even know what that is or who they are. More to the point, I don't see any of these people, whoever they are, organizing to attack our country en masse. Maybe a few foot soldiers here and there, but that seems to be more of a criminal action than a military one. Where are the troops invading our shores? I don't see them.

Is America under attack? My neighborhood isn't, and neither is yours. Yes, there was the single deadly attack six years ago in New York, but that's all it was. It wasn't another country invading ours; it wasn't Hitler storming into Poland. It was an isolated action by a small group of international criminals -- whose leader, BTW, our incompetent government still hasn't caught and brought to justice.

Bottom line, America is not at war. Some of our troops may be in a war zone in Iraq, but that does not justify the sweeping powers President Bush seems to feel a "war president" is entitled to. He is no more a "war president" than I am King of All That is Right. So let's dispense with the nonsense language and view things as they are -- not as Bush and Cheney would like to pretend they might be.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Postal

2007-10-07T11:27:00.000-04:00

I live in Carmel, a suburb north of Indianapolis, and the Carmel post office is a big one and a good one. Busy sometimes, as you might expect, but even long lines move fast when they have all 4 main counter positions and the auxiliary Postal Store counter open. (Especially when Joe, the guy who looks like Radar O'Reilly, is working; he's twice as fast as the other employees.)

So I had no problems with my post office. Some people complained at the lines around Christmas, but what do you expect? It was a pretty good setup.

Emphasis on the word "was."

Last year, the post office decided to augment the normal counter workers with two automated postal machines. No big deal; just two extra ways to get the job done. People don't use the machines much, of course, because they prefer the human interaction. Plus the human beings are faster than the machines. Still, nice to have the option if you wanted it.

But that wasn't good enough for the United States Postal Service. Last month they took out two counter positions and replaced them with two more of those infernal automated postal machines. Not augmented -- replaced. So now there are two fewer human beings to deal with, and two more mostly unused postal machines.

I asked Joe if people were really using the machines, and he replied, "They'll have to." That's customer service for you -- give the customers more of what they don't want. Now the lines to the human beings will be twice as along, while a lone manager stands next to the unused machines imploring customers to use them. Which we won't, because we don't like them. We like the reassurance of dealing with a human being, as opposed to the uncertainty of dealing with a machine. Plus, as I've noted, in this particular instance a good employee is much faster than these machines. Why use something that's slower and inspires less confidence?

Because the Postal Service wants to cut costs, is why. Fuck customer service, let's cut costs! (And still increase the price of stamps, of course.) Now people will have a real reason to complain when they're waiting in the now-longer lines at Christmastime. Good job, USPS. Maybe I'll start shipping more items out via FedEx.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Money

2007-08-24T09:28:00.000-04:00

And here you have it, the the primary reason that our presidential elections are so screwed up, from a Reuters news story posted today:

The presidential election is 14 months away and with as many as 17 candidates now running, U.S. television and radio broadcasters are elated at the prospect of billions more in advertising dollars...

Wall Street analysts predict television stations alone could bring in a record $2 billion to $3 billion from the 2008 election cycle, up from $1.6 billion in 2006 and $900 million in 2004. Companies expected to benefit include CBS Corp., Hearst-Argyle Television Inc. and Meredith Corp., with the latter two particularly seen benefiting in the early voting states.

The candidates have to start campaigning earlier to raise enough money to compete. The earlier campaigning means they spend more money. It's a vicious circle.

Raising all that money makes the candidates beholden to their contributors, and to the ever-increasing number of lobbyists and special interests. This, in turn, taints those who win, with the lobbyists and special interests making sure to call in their favors when it's time to govern.

It's all about the money. Cut the money out of the process, and you get cleaner government, less campaigning, and shorter election cycles.

The problem is, who makes all that money? Big media companies do. And if we cut the money out of the process, they stand to lose enormous amounts of revenues and profits. So you don't see big media companies pushing for election reform. No sir, you don't. It's not in their best interests.

It is in the interests of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and CNN to prolong the election cycle. The longer the election cycle, the more money they make. So why not drum up false stories and suspense as early as possible? There's big money in it.

A shorter election cycle would be a good thing. Elections without billions spent on television, radio, and newspaper advertising would be a good thing. Politicians who didn't have to spend all their time raising money -- and then taking orders from donors and lobbyists -- would be a good thing. But the media isn't interested in a good thing, they're interested in their own profits.

And that's why we'll never have significant election reform. Hell, you'll never even hear about any such efforts; the media simply won't report them.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Bridges

2007-08-08T16:53:00.000-04:00

The I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota is disturbing on many levels. The personal, of course; I've driven across that bridge several times, a friend of mine drove it every day, and one of my girlfriend's church friends was best friends with someone killed in the tragedy. But more than that, there is the sense that this particular incident is indicative of a larger decay in American society. If one bridge can collapse, why not more?

It's interesting that the I-35 bridge was located in Minnesota, a state with a very good record of infrastructure maintenance; the Minnesotans are a very civic-minded people. I would have thought a collapse like this more likely in a place like Illinois, where the state of the state's infrastructure defines the word decrepitude. I hate driving through Illinois; the roads are in horrible shape, and the bridges worse. It wouldn't surprise me to wake up some morning and find that the entire El system had turned to dust overnight, the crumbling streets having swallowed tracks and trains whole. But we can only dream.

The fact that something like this happened in a state like Minnesota makes it even more disturbing. But it's far from the first of these infrastructure collapses; in recent years, witness also the levees in New Orleans, the steam pipes in New York City, and other less well-known incidents. Things fall apart; the center will not hold.

The 20th century in America was a century of construction -- massive, impressive projects, from the Hoover Dam to the Empire State Building to the entire interstate highway system. The 21st century, however, will be a century of maintenance; all those massive constructions have to be maintained, or they'll fall apart. And, as the I-35 bridge demonstrates, things can fall apart quite quickly, and with tragic results.

The problem is, maintenance isn't sexy. No congressman wants to sponsor the "White River Parkway Repaving Bill," when they can put their name on the "Ted Stevens Bridge to Nowhere Bill." And it's not just our politicians; the public doesn't like to spend money on boring stuff like this. In fact, the public doesn't want to spend money on much, except perhaps big-screen TVs; they want the services, but without the taxes. It doesn't work that way.

Unless we start spending on maintaining our infrastructure, we'll see more tragedies such as the I-35 bridge collapse. Somehow we have to get our minds (and our wallets) around the benefits of spending to maintain the things we have, rather than buying new and sexier things.

Experts say it will cost $188 billion and take several decades to repair all those bridges similarly deficient to Minnesota's I-35 bridge. That seems like a lot, until you consider the $1 trillion spent on the Iraq war. Which is the better investment -- $188 billion to keep our country intact, or five times that amount to destroy a foreign country? I know which one I'd choose.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree

Termination

2007-07-15T15:02:00.000-04:00

The Chinese know how to deal with corruption. When they found Zheng Xiaoyu, former head of the State Food and Drug Administration, guilty of taking bribes to approve untested medicine, they executed him. Just like that. Bad official terminated -- with prejudice.

I'm not a big fan of capital punishment, so this seems a tad severe. That said, where I don't think the death sentence does much of a job in deterring most murderers, I can see where it might have an immediate and positive effect on governmental corruption. Take a bribe, get a seat in the electric chair. Say goodbye to undue lobbyist influence!

If this sort of thing were instituted in the United States, there'd be a long line for the firing squad. Messrs. Bush and Cheney would be at the front of the line, of course, followed closely by Brownie and Gonzales and all their minions, down to the hapless assistants who can't bring themselves to say much of anything in front of Congressional committees. There's so much corruption and cronyism in the Bush/Cheney administration, it would probably be easier to single out the innocent bureaucrats than to name all the guilty ones.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. our corrupt politicians don't get punished for their crimes; instead, they benefit from them. There's no deterrent when offenders get a medal from the president and a fat book contract, instead of being taken to task for what they've done. In China, they execute corrupt officials; in the U.S., we reward them. How's that for an enlightened Western civilization?

I'm not proposing instituting the death penalty for governmental corruption. (In fact, I'm an opponent of the death penalty in general.) But I do think we need to get our moral and ethical act together and root out corruption and cronyism at all levels of government. Even if we don't line the crooks up against a wall and give them a blindfold and a cigarette, we can still throw the bums out on their bums. The bad apples have to go -- it's time to clean up our governmental orchard.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Propaganda

2007-06-23T13:48:00.000-04:00

Notice anything different about Iraq war coverage lately? It seems that we're fighting and killing a lot of "al Qaeda" troops. Prior to a week or so ago, we were fighting Sunnis or Shias or just "insurgents." But all of a sudden all those factions have become "al Qaeda."

Except they haven't.

Al Qaeda represents a small fraction of the people fighting in Iraq. Very small. Most of the combatants are, as they have been, Shia and Sunni insurgent factions. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that the Bush administration is now referring to all enemy combatants as al Qaeda fighters, even when they're not.

This should not, I suppose, be surprising. The Bush administration has been lying to us for so long it would be difficult to take them seriously if they ever started to speak the truth. What is disturbing is how easily the lackeys in the press have accepted this new propanda, as witnessed by this headline from Reuters: "U.S. and Iraq Forces Kill 90 al Qaeda in Offensive." And this one from the New York Times: "G.I.’s in Iraq Open Big Offensive Against Al Qaeda." And this one from the Associated Press: "U.S. Targets Entrenched al-Qaeda Fighters."

None of this is true; the people we're fighting are not "al Queda fighters," they're the same Sunnis and Shias we've been fighting all along, as pointed out in exquisite detail by Salon's Glen Greenwald in this blog post. It's just that our government and military leaders are now calling them al Qaeda. But calling them al Qaeda doesn't make them al Qaeda; they're still Iraqi insurgents.

Why this particular lie? By defining our opposition as al Qaeda, the government links our fight in Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, thus justifying the war as "fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here." It's all bullshit, and transparent bullshit at that, but it takes on a certain weight when the mainstream media repeats the bullshit without question.

The press has an obligation to report the truth, not to repeat government propaganda. If there is a single reason why our country is in the situation it's currently in, it's not Bush and Cheney and their quest for ultimate power, it's the failure of the press to do its duty. While there are exceptions (thank you, Seymour Hersh), the media today has abandoned the truth and thus forfeited its responsibility to help maintain an open, informed, and free republic. When the press fails us, our democracy fails.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Acting

2007-06-04T12:51:00.001-04:00

Fred Thompson is running for president. If you listen to the supposedly left-leaning mainstream media, you hear that Thompson is a good ol' boy, a down-home conservative from Tennessee who drives a pickup truck and embodies traditional (southern) American values.

What the press doesn't tell you is that this image is totally manufactured. Thompson is a high-priced attorney who's made millions as a Washington lobbyist. And when he's not busy buying off our legislators, he's out in Hollywood working as a high-paid actor.

All that down-home, pickup-driving, traditional conservative nonsense? It's just acting. The good ol' boy from Tennessee is just another role Thompson is playing; the Thompson we see (or want to see) is an amalgamation of his various movie and television roles. The reality is much different from the image.

That's fine; politicians have always tried to create optimal images for themselves. What's disconcerting is how the media buys into the image. Listen to any of the cable TV pundits, and they spout the pre-manufactured line: Thompson is a strong authority figure, he's a Washington outsider, he's a down-home good ol' boy. In reality, Thompson is the consummate Washington insider, but that's not what the media reports. They buy into the fabricated image, and perpetuate it.

I supposed it's not surprising; the media has long opted to simplify the complex, and present the story that they think will attract more viewers (or sell more newspapers). Just look at how the media helped to sell George W. Bush during the 2000 election (and beyond), as the good ol' boy from Texas instead of the privileged frat boy from Harvard. I suppose Bush as guy-next-door Texan is a more appealing story than Bush as spoiled rich kid, but it's not the real story.

Same thing with Thompson. It'd be nice to have a real, honest-to-goodness populist from Tennessee running for president. That's not what Thompson is, but it's what he pretends to be, and the press buys into it and perpetuates the myth. They're feeding us what we want to hear, as opposed to what we need to hear.

The press should do more than regurgitate campaign press releases. They should dig beneath the p.r. and unearth the facts, and then tell us what's really going on. That's the disappointing thing about this Orwellian world in which we live; it's not that the politicians are lying to us, it's that the press is falling down on the job. We expect our politicians to lies; we need the media to separate the truth from the fabrications.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Spineless

2007-05-23T10:27:00.001-04:00

The majority of Americans want the war in Iraq ended -- now. Yet the president ignores the public and orders more troops into combat in a pointless "surge" of death and destruction. This is not news.

It is dismaying that the new Democratic congress can't muster the backbone to stand up to our madman-in-chief. First it was the toothless "nonbinding resolution," now it's the "compromise" funding bill. They tried to tie additional funding to a timetable for withdrawal, but the president vetoed that version. They tried to soften the bill, but the president threatened further vetoes. He wanted a "compromise" that was no compromise at all, a funding bill with no constraints. That's what he's getting, as our elected representatives totally backed down to our power-mad leader.

Why is congress so spineless? America has its collective back; we elected this latest crop of representatives precisely to stop the war. The people no longer support the war, and no longer support the president. Why can't congress do the will of the people and stand up to Bush and Cheney to stop the war?

This tells me that we really do have a one-party system, the party of the powerful, and it will do anything to perpetuate its rule. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter; nothing must disturb the continued accumulation of power. The constitution be damned and to hell with the will of the people -- the ruling class must continue to rule, absolutely.

If our congresspeople listened to the people who elected them, we'd be cutting off war funding and considering a raft of impeachment proceedings, starting with Bush and going down from there. The people would support that; the people want change. But congress isn't listening, so the killing continues and America's democratic heritage is fast becoming a thing of the past.

The system isn't working. We need change, major change, and we need it soon. The spineless need not apply.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Falwell

2007-05-17T14:37:00.000-04:00

It's impolite to speak ill of the dead, but there's no other way to reflect on the Rev. Jerry Falwell. I'm not a big believer in good vs. evil, but if there is such a thing as evil, Falwell's actions over the course of his career were just that. I don't know anything about the man himself; he may have been kind and loving. But the effect he had on American politics, religion, and the civil discourse was poisonous.

Where to start? Over the years, Mr. Falwell made comments in favor of segregation and apartheid, and strongly against civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King, gays, and most forms of tolerance; he was anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, and anti-moderate Christian. His beliefs were profane to the extreme, especially his statement that gays and feminists and abortionists and the ACLU were to blame for the 9/11 attacks. In public at least, Falwell was a hateful, spiteful, and hugely intolerant man.

Even worse, Falwell's merger of politics and religion, both conservative, changed the face of politics starting with the Reagan era and continuing into the Bush monarchy. Instead of keeping private beliefs private, Falwell's Moral Majority gave rise to the Religious Right and helped to steer public debate away from substantive issues toward so-called social issues -- abortion, gay marriage, evolution in the schools, and the like. This undue influence of evangelical Christianity, in service to some future theocracy, could possibly undermine American democracy as we know it. And Falwell is at least partly to blame for that.

Whether Falwell himself was evil or not does not excuse his evil deeds. For a supposed righteous man, his actions harmed countless poor, minority, and repressed individuals. His theology was exclusive, not inclusive; his fundamentalist politics, as embraced by two generations of Republican politicians, have helped to make America both despised and the laughing-stock of the the modern world.

Am I glad that Jerry Falwell is dead? Any death is a loss, but we're all better off not having Falwell and his ilk trying to impose their intolerance on America and the world. Let's hope that Falwell's influence -- due in part to his appearance at the dawn of the cable television age -- wanes with his passing.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Fearmonger

2007-04-25T15:37:00.000-04:00

So now we know how Rudy Giuliani will run his presidential campaign. He's not just playing the 9/11 card (his only card, IMHO), but picking up the Bush/Cheney fearmongering approach.

This week, Mr. G. (I refuse to be so familiar with politicians as to call them by their first names) flat out said that if a Democrat is elected in 2008, we'll have another 9/11. If a Republican is elected (Mr. G., in particular), there won't be any attacks. So whom would you choose?

The proper response to this is one word: "Bullshit." This sort of fearmongering worked in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, but it doesn't play anymore. Vote for a Democrat and we'll get attacked? No one's buying that.

Of course, it would be nice if the leading Democratic contenders responded in this kind of plain language. Instead, we get typical politician-speak, where the point (if it is one) is buried in copious amounts of cover-your-ass verbiage, sure to inspire the average American to tune out and turn off.

For example, here's how Senator Clinton responded to Mr. G's outrageous claim:

"There are people right now in the world, not just wishing us harm but actively planning and plotting to cause us harm. If the last six years of the Bush Administration have taught us anything, it's that political rhetoric won't do anything to quell those threats. And that America is ready for a change.

"One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11. We have to protect our country from terrorism -- it shouldn't be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight. The plain truth is that this Administration has done too little to protect our ports, make our mass transit safer, and protect our cities. They have isolated us in the world and have let Al Qaeda regroup. The next President is going to be left with these problems and will have to do what it takes to make us safer and bring Democrats and Republicans together around this common mission of protecting our nation. That is exactly what has to be done and what I am ready to do."

Two paragraphs where one word ("bullshit") would do. This is why I don't like Ms. C. -- too much business-as-usual politics, not enough straight talk. Where's the beef? If it's there (and I'm not sure it is), it's well-buried.

Senator Obama's response was a little more direct:

"Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics. America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure."

And, just in, here's how former Senator Edwards responded:

"Rudy Giuliani's suggestion that there is some superior 'Republican' way to fight terrorism is both divisive and plain wrong. He knows better. That's not the kind of leadership he offered in the days immediately after 9/11, and it's not the kind of leadership any American should be offering now.

"As far as the facts are concerned, the current Republican administration led us into a war in Iraq that has made us less safe and undermined the fight against al Qaeda. If that's the 'Republican' way to fight terror, Giuliani should know that the American people are looking for a better plan. That's just one more reason why this election is so important; we need to elect a Democratic president who will end the disastrous diversion of the war in Iraq."

I like Edwards' response better than Clinton's or Obama's (Mr. G. is "both divisive and plain wrong"), even if it could be a tad more concise. That said, I'm longing for that aspiring public servant to give the appropriate one-word response, and put the fearmongering to rest.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Service Update

2007-04-21T14:43:00.000-04:00

A quick update on the Best Buy customer service situation. Turns out they weren't as good as they initially appeared.

If you recall, I had purchased a Philips DVD player that crapped out within the month. When my girlfriend went to exchange it, BB was out of that model and instead upgraded her, for free, to the "next highest" model.

Turns out, however, that the "next highest" model wasn't really. We had purchased the first Philips player because it offered upconversion to HD resolution. The "next highest" model, while a DVD recorder (nice bonus), was actually last year's model and didn't offer upconversion. The lady at BB who offered the swap, no surprise, didn't even know what upconversion was.

End of story, my girlfriend took the non-upconverting DVD recorder back and paid the difference to get an LG upconverting combination VCR/DVD recorder, the better to dub her old VHS tapes to DVDs. BB tried to be helpful, but ultimately failed because their staff was poorly educated. Lesson learned.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Service

2007-04-05T11:09:00.000-04:00

A couple of notes about customer service.

First, a good story. I recently purchased a new 32" LCD TV and companion DVD player for my girlfriend. We bought them at Best Buy, even though I haven't always been a fan. I run hot and cold on BB; sometimes I get good service, sometimes I don't. In any case, less than a month after purchasing these items, the Philips DVD player crapped out. My girlfriend returned the DVD player to the Apple Valley, MN, Best Buy, where we had purchased it. Unfortunately, they didn't have any of the same unit to replace it with, so they sent her down the road to the Burnsville BB. This store also didn't have any replacements, so they just gave her the "upgraded" model instead. The upgraded model is actually a DVD recorder that sells for twice as much as the original unit, so we got a much better unit for the same price, very little hassle. Good job, Best Buy. You have two very satisfied customers. (And the cheapie Westinghouse flat screen we purchased is a surprisingly good performer, considering the $699 price.)

Now, a bad story. Best Buy's competitor, Circuit City, had a bad year last year and is now in the process of cutting costs. The way they're doing that is to fire their highest-paid store employees. (Not management, of course, just the in-store guys.) So they're taking their most experienced, best trained, and presumably best performing employees and giving them the old heave-ho. This tells their remaining employees that there's no point in sticking around or improving their performance, as this just leads to getting canned. And it tells their customers that they'll be getting worse service from now on. I used to like CC, thought they had better service and better-trained personnel overall than BB, but no longer. Apparently Circuit City thinks their customers don't deserve good service.

As a customer who appreciates and demands quality service, I say "fuck you, Circuit City." The quality of service at retail has declined significantly since I was in the retail business twenty years ago. It's apparently what the consumer wants; lower prices take precedence over quality service. That's too bad.

So the next time you go into Circuit City or some similar big box retailer and get served by a disinterested, uninformed, incompetent salesperson, know this -- you get what you pay for. And for the American consumer, poor service is exactly what you deserve. (But the prices are so cheap!)

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Four

2007-03-19T16:42:00.000-04:00

Four years ago, George Bush's army invaded the sovereign state of Iraq, supposedly in search of what were actually non-existent "weapons of mass destruction." Four years later, the country of Iraq is in much worse shape than it was before, the country is embroiled in the midst of a bloody civil war, and America has become hated the world over.

Four years ago,

Iraqis had a fully functioning electric grid, with 24/7 power
Iraqis lived in one of the most modern societies in the Middle East
Iraqi women saw a level of independence and acceptance similar to that in Western societies
Iraqis felt safe to walk their streets at night
There was no sectarian violence in Iraq
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were still alive
3208 Americans were still alive
32,000 Americans were unwounded

Today, four years after the invasion, here's how the world looks:

Iraqis have only spotty electricity, with other utilities similarly demolished and barely functioning; living conditions are much worse than under the previous regime
Iraqi society has devolved significantly; the upper class has fled, the middle class faces massive unemployment, and modernity has been replaced with near-feudal living conditions
Iraqi women have been forced to adhere to hard line religious rule and restrictions; freedom and independence are a thing of the past
Iraqis not only can't walk the streets at night, they can't walk the streets in the daytime without fear of being bombed, shot at, or kidnapped
The country is in the midst of a violent sectarian civil war
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, either by U.S. troops or by sectarian violence
3208 American troops have been killed in combat
More than 32,000 Americans have suffered combat-related injuries, many of them horrific and unrecoverable.

In other words, and no one in power wants to admit this, things were much better under Saddam Hussein -- for both Iraqis and Americans. Since Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (or even of everyday type destruction), he posed no threat to the United States. The Iraqi populace, while somewhat repressed, were at least alive. They had electricity and running water and no one was shooting at them every time they opened their front doors. Life under Hussein wasn't perfect, but it wasn't deadly.

Today, life in Iraq is deadly -- for Iraqis and Americans alike. The Iraq invasion has proven to be perhaps the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history. And yet the Bush administration shows no sign of ending our long international embarrassment. The incursion that was supposed to last weeks, not months, has instead lasted four years, with no end in sight.

Still, the president pleads for our patience in seeing it through to whatever end might await. "Four years after this war began, the fight is difficult but it can be won," Bush said. "It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through."

He is wrong. He has consistently been wrong. The "fight" cannot be won. Courage and resolve have nothing to do with it. At this point, Bush's "resolve" is nothing more than suicidal stubbornness. Facts are facts; Bush and his cronies have made Iraq a much worse place than it was before we invaded. Iraq is in the midst of a bloody civil war, and it's America's fault.

We must own up to our mistakes and get the hell out of Iraq as fast as we can. The right-wing war hawks think it is a sign of weakness to admit and correct our mistakes. Instead, they'll stick to their wrong-headed ideas until there are no soldiers left to fight. I don't know what sort of psychological problems these people have, but our soldiers and the Iraqi populace are dying for the hawks' misplaced bravado. Fighting till the bitter end is seldom the best approach to any conflict, especially if you're fighting a losing battle.

Some war proponents argue that we have to stay in Iraq because the situation will get even worse if we leave. Maybe that's the case, but things are also getting worse the longer we stay. Four years is enough; each additional day only makes things worse.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Dynasty

2007-03-10T12:17:00.000-05:00

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, I'll probably vote for her in the general election. But I hope she doesn't win; I don't want her to be president. Not that she wouldn't make a good president. Maybe she would, maybe she wouldn't. All I know is that a second President Clinton would be a very bad thing for our country.

If Senator Clinton becomes President Clinton, that will mean that two families will have ruled the United States for a quarter of a century. Our country has been run by someone named Bush or Clinton since 1988; that's the kind of sequential family dynasty that our forefathers rebelled against in 1776.

It doesn't matter whether this Bush or that Clinton was a good or a bad ruler; the idea of a ruling family (or two) is antithetical to a healthy democracy. America was not created as a monarchy. We are supposed to be a country of the people, for the people, not a kingdom ruled by the privileged few.

Think if the trends continue. Senator Clinton wins in 2008, and maybe gets re-elected in 2012. By that time, the Bush stench has subsided and brother Jeb wins the Republican nomination and the general election in 2016. If he gets re-elected in 2020, we're now looking at a dual-family dynasty from 1988 through 2024 -- 36 years of Bush and Clinton. That would have been unthinkable to our founding fathers, and should be unacceptable to us today.

Again, I'm not judging Senator Clinton's fitness for the job. Personally, I think she's both a shrill and canny political manipulator, skilled and intelligent yet two-faced and purely interested in her own political ambition. In that regard, she's not unlike the two-faced Republicans currently in the race, such as Giuliani and McCain, both of whom are selling their souls for the blessing of the religious right. All things said and done, I'll take a two-faced quasi-liberal over a two-faced quasi-conservative any day.

That said, I'd rather have a better choice, as would most Americans. That's where someone like Barack Obama or John Edwards has appeal; Obama for his freshness and lack of old-school political ties, and Edwards for his populist stance and positive message. I think either of these gentleman would make a fine candidate and a fine leader. We need new faces and new ideas, not the tired old political platitudes and certainly not another member of our two-family royal dynasty.

So that's why I'm anti-Clinton, and think she should be taken out of the race before the primaries are over. She should sacrifice her own ambition for the good of the country; the Bush-Clinton dynasty should end with King George II.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Tabloids

2007-02-10T10:57:00.000-05:00

There are a lot of important things happening in our world today. One congressional oversight committee is investigating billions of dollars of fraud and waste in Iraq, another is investigating the fabricated intelligence that was used to sell the war, the vice president's top aide is on trial for lying to a grand jury about that same pre-war intelligence, congress is debating just what it can do to stop the president from sending more troops to Iraq, and the president himself is apparently making plans to invade Iraq's next-door neighbor, Iran. Yet with all this important news to report, what is our mainstream media reporting?

Anna Nicole Smith. And a deranged astronaut with romantic problems.

Our mainstream media has devolved into tabloid journalism. Television and newspaper reporters pander to the lowest common denominator; coverage is dictated by ratings, circulation, and web page hits. The result is perhaps the lowest point for our media since the yellow journalism of a century ago. The situation is deplorable.

Obviously, a great number of people are interested in Anna Nicole Smith. They're also interested in Tom Cruise's baby, Jennifer Anniston's body parts, and Bigfoot. That doesn't mean, however, that our respected news media needs to devote all their coverage to these vicarious subjects. That's what we have tabloids for. Let the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News report on dead ex-strippers and diaper-wearing homicidal space travelers; CBS News and the New York Times should eschew such frivolous topics and instead report on the life-and-death news that really matters.

Unfortunately, when newsrooms are ruled by accountants, only the bottom line matters. So our media gives the public what they want, not necessarily what they need. Yeah, the Scooter Libby trial is complex. Yeah, the news from Iraq is depressing. Yeah, no one really wants to hear about yet another pending war in the Middle East. But we need to hear about these things, or else our democracy becomes a sham; a well-informed public is essential to a functioning democracy, after all. And the public is not well-informed when it knows more about Anna Nicole Smith's sex partners than it does about who's running what in Washington.

The death of relevant media can be directly or indirectly blamed on the rise of the for-profit 24-hour cable news networks. One such network was fine; CNN in the old days served a very useful purpose. But today's three-or-more-way competition results in too much airtime to fill and excessive pandering to the know-nothing masses. Call me elitist, call me an intellectual (oh that word!), but I want to be informed -- and I need my neighbors to be informed, as well, whether they want to or not.

Real news isn't always pretty, and becoming informed takes effort. Our news media needs to facilitate that effort, not pander to the low-brow tastes of an apparently congenitally disinterested public. The media must help us rise above our intellectual sloth, not push us further into the muck. Give Anna Nicole Smith a short bio in the entertainment section, but leave page one (and the hour-long cable analysis) for news that really matters.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Resolution

2007-01-24T10:39:00.000-05:00

President Bush is about to escalate the war in Iraq, in defiance of the overwhelming majority of the American public, our elected officials, his military leaders, and the country's best advisers. It is a suicidal action that has resulted in poll ratings similar to those of President Nixon in the throes of the Watergate affair. Yet still he proceeds.

How can we stop this madman? Our Congress, emboldened by the anti-war mandate of the 2006 elections, has taken the dramatic step of -- wait for it -- introducing a non-binding resolution opposing the troop surge.

They could have voted to impeach the president, but they didn't. They could have voted to withhold funds for the extra troops, but they didn't. They could have voted to cut all military funding related to Iraq, but they didn't. They could have voted to repeal their previous support of the war, but they didn't. Instead, they voted for a non-binding resolution. Non-binding. Totally toothless.

Our representatives are weak, spineless, worthless wussies. They have a mandate from the public, and they back down. They could help to stop this war, and instead they piddle, twiddle, and resolve. Nothing's ever solved when Congress abdicates its duty in this fashion. While they argue about the specific non-binding language in the non-binding resolution, President Bush marches forward, leaving more bodies in his wake.

It wasn't always thus. Rick Perlstein has an interesting article on Salon.com that details how the Congress of a different era produced real legislation that helped to scale down the Vietnam War in the late 60s/early 70s. They could have done a non-binding resolution (in fact, such a resolution was proposed in 1970 by Senator Edmund Muskie), but stronger wills prevailed. Congress can put the brakes on a runaway president. The fact that the current Congress, despite the bluster, won't, is pathetic.

We must stop the madman in the White House. Only our representatives can do this. Write your congressman and senators. Tell them you want action -- real action that produces real results. Not non-binding resolutions and political compromise, but hard and measurable results. We have the power, which means they have the power. The madness must stop.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Surge

2007-01-14T16:01:00.001-05:00

So President Bush plans to go ahead with his ill-conceived and universally reviled plan for a "surge" of 20,000 or so troops into Iraq. Most experts agree that this surge, more accurately an escalation of hostilities, will have no noticeable long-term effect, save for the needless deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers (and thousands more Iraqis, no doubt). This action positions Bush as the Nixon of our generation, out of touch with the reality of the war, the pulse of the populace, and the political winds in Congress. He has ignored advice from his generals, his advisers, and his fellow politicians, and truly is living in a delusional reality of his own making.

Bush's troop surge must meet with a matching surge of opposition. As sane and loyal Americans, here is what we must do:

Contact our senators and congresspeople to register our opposition, and to urge support for legislation that blocks funding for this troop escalation
Write letters to our local newspapers voicing our opposition
Remember which politicians are supporting this suicidal surge and make sure that they are not elected to office in the future (that means no executive office for you, Senator McCain)
Start talking about the possibility of impeachment -- of both the president and the vice-president

Nixon's escalation of the Vietnam War was one of the factors that led to his downfall; it was the first sign to many middle Americans that the president was out of touch with the reality of the times. Hopefully similar good can come from Bush's escalation of the Iraq War -- and lead to his eventual dethroning.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Sony: The Worst Customer Service in the World

2006-12-26T11:54:00.000-05:00

I normally like Sony. Have for some time. I have a number of Sony products -- including a big-screen TV, desktop PC, and laptop PC. But no more.

Here's the story of the worst customer service I've ever encountered. (And I've encountered a lot of bad customer service, so trust me on this.)

On Wednesday Dec 13, I used my Sony laptop as normal during the day, no problems. That evening, at home, I try to turn on the laptop and nothing happens. Nada, no power, no lights, no nothing. Panic ensues, as I use my laptop for my professional writing, and had a ton of work on it that I now couldn't access.

This was about 10:00 p.m. (Eastern time) on the 13th. I called Sony's 24/7 support line. A lady (in India, of course) talked me through various procedures, to no effect; the ultimate conclusion was that I probably had a bad motherboard.

At this point I stressed that I needed repairs as fast as humanly possible, due to the needs of my profession and some looming deadlines. As the laptop was purchased just a year previous and supposedly had in-home service, I thought the next step would be fairly straightforward. Not so.

The lady in India said that before she could schedule service, I had to fax them my sales receipt. I questioned this, as I had purchased the laptop directly from SonyStyle. Doesn't matter, she replied, her department and that department are on different systems. I still needed to find and fax my receipt to a different number in California, and then call that office to confirm -- after 8:00 the next morning (Pacific time), which is apparently when that particular 24/7 service department opens for business.

Arguing did no good, so I hung up the phone, dug up the receipt, and faxed it to California.

The next morning, at 11:05 sharp (Eastern time), I called the California number. Yes, they'd received my fax. Unfortunately, it showed that my computer was out of warranty, and I wasn't eligible for either free or in-home service.

To this point, I argued. The computer had been ordered on December 8, 2005. Obviously, I didn't receive it on that date; to the best of my recollection, I received it on December 11, or thereabouts. The PC went dead on December 13, 2006 -- although it was now December 14th. To the kind and understanding folks at Sony, that meant that the PC was six days out of warranty (from the 8th to the 14th). To me, it meant it was at best two days out of warranty (the 11th to the 13th), but that wasn't really the point. Whether it was two days or six, it was close enough for Sony to take care of the issue.

Which they didn't.

For the next three hours, I talked to a dozen different people at a half-dozen different phone numbers, trying to get some satisfaction. There was none to be had. The folks at Sony, all twelve or so of them, went out of their way to tell me in no uncertain terms that they need not, could not, and would not help me in any way shape or form. All of them said that I had to ship my PC back to Sony and pay for the repairs myself. No in-home service. No warranty coverage. No help, no sympathy, no apologies. (One jackass even had the temerity to suggest that if I had just purchased an extended warranty...)

Finally, mid-afternoon, after spending more than three hours on the phone, I finally, finally found a supervisor of a supervisor who offered this solution. He would (and this is his exact word) "accommodate" me. This one time, he said, he would cover the repairs under warranty, but only if I shipped the PC back to Sony. I replied that this wasn't an accommodation, it was an obligation, and one that should have been offered at the start, not after three hours of pushing and pulling. And, I stressed, the needs of my business wouldn't let me wait a week or more for the PC to be shipped to them and then back again; I needed immediate local service. That was not possible, the Sony person said. The only way they'd do the repairs for free was at their San Diego service center.

I argued and cajoled and threatened some more (including the threat -- no, the promise -- to blog about it here and on my AOL Digital Lifestyle blog, which is read by tens of thousands of people daily), to no avail. This was his accommodation, and I could accept it or not. Fine, I finally said, who should I send the bill to? What bill, he asked. The bill for the new PC I'd have to buy that afternoon, I answered. There's no one to send it to, he said. Sure there is, I continued. You have a boss, don't you? Yes, he said. Then give me his name, I said. I can't give out that information, he said. Fine, I said. Just send the damned FedEx box so I can send the thing to San Diego for repair. He said I should receive the box by Monday (the 18th). "Is there anything else I can help you with," he said, directly from his script. I hung up the phone.

Three things happened next.

First, I went out that afternoon and bought a new Gateway laptop. Twice the performance of the year-old Sony at half the price. And it wasn't a Sony.

Second, I waited for the shipping box. It didn't arrive on Monday the 18th, as promised. It didn't arrive on Tuesday the 19th. It finally arrived on Wednesday the 20th, ensuring that I could not ship the PC to California, have it repaired, and have it returned to me by the Christmas holiday.

Third, I fixed the Sony PC myself. After loading the new Gateway PC with as much backup data as I could, I realized that I had still had some irreplaceable files on the Sony that I really needed. If I could only get it running for five minutes, I could retrieve those files.

I remembered something the first Indian tech support person had me try. I was to remove the battery, plug in the unit, depress the power button for 25 seconds, then try powering up again. This supposedly would fix any Windows hibernation-related problems. We had tried it that first evening, to no effect.

I wondered if, perhaps, 25 seconds wasn't long enough. So I plugged in the notebook, depressed the power button for 60 seconds, then tried starting it up.

Nothing.

Then I tried one last thing. I unplugged the unit, reinserted the battery, and pressed the power button.

Voila! The notebook sprang to life, and has been working perfectly since then.

So here's the list of Sony's technical support failures:

Failed to offer to repair a potential problem under warranty
Failed to honor the warranty's in-home service provision
Failed to provide a FedEx shipping box in a prompt manner as promised
Failed to properly walk me through the process that would have fixed the problem

Ultimately, Sony's biggest failure was in the way they handled a customer in need. At no point did a single person say "I'm sorry, Mr. Miller. We'll take care of this for you." Not a single apology, not a single note of sympathy, not a single person willing to step outside the process to take care of the situation and help the customer. Every single person I talked to went out of their way not to help me. Every Sony representative had to emphasize how he or she couldn't help me. No apologies, no sympathy, no help. This is not the way to run a business.

(In contrast, when I had similar problems with my Niveus Media Center PC this summer -- a bad motherboard, it was -- the Niveus people bent over backwards to help, rectifying the problem to my satisfaction and without cost to me. Yes, their PC broke just like the Sony, but Niveus' superb customer support made the best of a bad situation. Kudos to Niveus for their first-class customer-focused support.)

So now you know why I will never buy another Sony product. Never. I gave the now-functioning Sony laptop to my girlfriend to use (until it does eventually crap out) and I'm happy with my new Gateway machine. But the Sony experience is one everyone must know about; to be forewarned is to avoid companies that treat their customers with such disdain.

There will be no more Sony products in my household. This type of customer disservice must not be rewarded.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Madman

2006-12-20T16:24:00.000-05:00

The war in Iraq is a failure. No one knows what "victory" may mean, but it is clear that it is now unattainable. Iraq is is worse shape now than under Saddam Hussein, before America invaded. U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians are the target of almost constant violence, and the country is the midst of what is and will remain a bloody civil and religious war.

Facing these facts, President Bush wants to send more troops into Iraq in a final "surge" that amounts to little more than a late fourth-quarter Hail Mary play. His Joint Chiefs oppose this strategy. Most members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, oppose this strategy. The American people oppose this strategy. It is, in all estimations, a recipe for failure, a move that will only prolong the inevitable American withdrawal at the cost of hundreds if not thousands of new American deaths.

Despite the facts, despite the reasoned opposition, despite the will of the American public, Bush intends to pursue this deadly strategy. He exists in his own fantasy world where the public supports him, the American will shall always prevail, and victory in Iraq is just a surge away. Bush is not just blind to reality, he is a madman. He must be stopped before more lives are lost, and before America as we know it is irrevocably destroyed.

Defeating his party in the mid-term elections apparently was not enough to stop this madman from pursuing his insane agenda. Wiser heads must prevail, using whatever means are necessary. On a ship, this would be cause for mutiny. In the ship of state, other means are available -- including but not limited to impeachment.

Stop the madness. Stop the madman. Now.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Prayer

2006-12-05T14:44:00.000-05:00

In late November, six Muslim clerics were removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis after some other passengers were disturbed by their very public praying at the gate. This has become a major incident, with the imams claiming religious discrimination, various interfaith organizations conducting "pray-ins" and calling for the acceptance of public prayer, and other Muslims calling for the establishment of a private "prayer room" at the Minneapolis airport.

Here's where you might expect me to get all up in arms and plead for more tolerance toward minority religions and such. Suprise.

Not that I support yanking the obviously harmless clerics off the plane (that reeked of overkill), but I do think that their actions in the terminal were inappropriate for the very public place they were in. Praying silently and privately is one thing; laying down prayer mats, kneeling down and bowing, and reciting your prayers out loud is something completely different.

While this activity is perfectly acceptable in a mosque or private home, in a public setting it can be very disrupting. There is an unstated obligation in a public society to fit in with your surroundings, to not draw attention to yourself. You can be as individualistic as you want in private, but in public you become part of the public. That's why we have various laws regulating public behavior -- you can't walk around naked in public, or play your car radio too loud on a neighborhood street, or stagger around drunk and beligerant. We moderate ourselves in public in order to form an orderly society; practicing private ritual in public disrupts that order.

I don't direct these comments solely to Muslims who feel the need to pray five times a day, no matter where they are or what they're doing; the same holds for anyone who wants to make private religious rituals public. Imagine a Pentacostal loudly speaking in tongues during dinner hour at Applebees, or a Buddhist sitting down to meditate in a cross-legged position in the middle of a crowded shopping mall, or a fervent Baptist holding his Bible aloft and shouting out prayers in the aisle of a commuter train. None of these are appropriate public behaviors; all become disruptive when forced on nearby strangers.

I would think this would be self-evident, that individuals would police themselves in these matters, and that further restrictive rules and regulations would not be necessary. Instead, what seems to be to be common-sense restraint is viewed as advocating religious intolerance. Asking someone to tone down their behavior in public is now tantamount to attacking an entire religion. It's political correctness elevated to a level of religious evangelism, and it's wrong.

If you want to pray, do it at home, or in church, or silently to yourself. When you're in public, moderate your behavior so as not to offend or disrupt others. Asking someone to pray to themselves is not religious intolerance; it's simple civility.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Choice

2006-11-08T16:36:00.000-05:00

The results are in, and the public voted for a change. Top among the reasons for voting as they did, the public cited the war in Iraq, terrorism, and corruption. That's right, we voted to throw the bums out. Good for us!

Voting for a change is effective only when there's a valid choice, however. Some areas of the U.S. had lots of choice; some didn't. I happen to live in Hamilton County, Indiana, one of the most Republican areas of the entire country. As happens most every election day, I found myself very pissed off when I realized that many of the offices on the ballot presented no choice at all -- only Republicans were running. In particular, there wasn't a single Democrat on my ballot for county sheriff, court clerk, recorder, coroner, assessor, or commissioner. There was also no Democrat on the ballot opposite Senator Richard Lugar, and only a token opposition to Congressman Dan Burton. In other words, for well over half the offices on the ballot, I had no choice but to vote Republican. Maybe it's time for me to move.

Across the country, though, there was more of a choice, and people in general voted against the Republican incumbents. This is a good thing. The country is a in a real mess, and while the Executive branch is chiefly responsible, the Congress is to blame for letting it happen. When the bums and scoundrels are too much in the pocket of the President, it's time to change staff. Which is exactly what happened yesterday.

The good news is, a fresh Congress will provide the necessary checks and balances on an Executive branch used to unfettered and unquestioned power. Even better news is that it looks as if everything happened on the up and up; the wave was so big that the ruling party couldn't steal it this time.

It's definitely time for a change. Get ready for an interesting two years.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Vote

2006-11-05T16:07:00.000-05:00

Tuesday is election day. It's important that you exercise your right to vote. It will be disappointing to see half the electorate not exercise this right; it essentially means that half the populace doesn't care enough about our democracy to play their part.

I understand why some people don't vote. I've encountered lots of folks, both young and old, who are totally disillusioned with the process. Some of these folks view all politicians as corrupt, or feel their vote doesn't count, or are convinced that money and privilege provide power, no matter what the vote results. Maybe some or all of these views are valid, but you still have to try. That's our duty.

If you don't vote on Tuesday, you forfeit all right to complain about the way things are run. Don't like what's happening in Iraq? Think we need health care reform? Concerned that your taxes are too high? Hate the way your local schools are run? Then quit complaining and go vote. It's the only opportunity you have to make your voice heard -- unless you're a lobbyist with big bucks to donate, of course.

So get out and vote on Tuesday. No matter which side you vote for, your voice is important. Don't squander your opportunity to instigate change -- and, slowly but surely, work towards a better way.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree. (But if you want to disagree, you better vote!)

Change the course

2006-10-27T13:22:00.000-04:00

On next Tuesday, I will vote -- as should you. While most people think of me as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat, I vote for candidates from either party. (Although, I admit, my lifelong vote tally is predominantly Democratic.) As an example of my open-mindedness, this time around I'll be voting, once again, for Indiana Senator Richard Lugar. He's done an okay job, for a Republican apologist, and I especially like his efforts to contain loose nukes from the former Soviet republics. So he gets my vote, in spite of party affiliation.

For other offices, I vote Democratic even though the Democrats have no chance in hell of winning in my particular district. For example, I have to vote against Representative Dan Burton, one of the biggest slimeballs in Congress today (and that's saying a lot), even though he doesn't even have a viable candidate running against him. That's the peril of living in one of the most solidly Republican districts in the country -- an area so Republican that some offices don't even have Democrats listed on the ballot. It's not that the area is hyper-conservative; my neighbors engage in more than their share of drink and illicit sex, thank you very much. No, the district is extremely wealthy, and apparently well-off people vote Republican for financial considerations. So be it.

For lesser offices, where I have no idea who's even running (voting uninformed is one of the major shortfalls of democracy), I always vote against the incumbent. My take is that, more often than not, whoever got voted into office is probably corrupt, so I'll take whatever alternative is available. Retain judge so and so? Nope. Re-elect incumbent whomever? Not a chance. I always vote for change, as it were.

Speaking of change, this election is the best chance we have to express our discontent with the current resident of the White House. I know King George isn't up for re-election, but we can kick out his faithful and irresponsible toadies. That means voting against Republican incumbents, wherever you can. Stay the course? Not this election. This time, the election is all about changing the course -- and bringing some modicum of responsibility back to Washington.

But that's just my opinion; the important thing is that you vote, for whichever side.

Slogans

2006-10-24T12:42:00.000-04:00

So the Bush administration says that it is no longer using the phrase "stay the course" when speaking about the Iraq war. Notice that they didn't say they were changing their strategy. They're just changing their slogan. It's not the same thing.

The Bushies have no clear goal for getting out of Iraq. They have no plan. They have no timetable. In my mind, if you're not getting out, you're staying -- the course, that is.

And if they were getting out, wouldn't that be the same sort of "cut and run" strategy they accuse their detractors of? I mean, if you're not staying, you're running. And if cutting and running is so bad, then so must be not staying, shouldn't it?

To make matters worse, Bush goes to the Orwellian extreme of denying that "stay the course" was never their strategy in the first place. Press secretary Tony Snow recently stated that "The idea that we're staying the course is just wrong," even though until very recently Bush uttered that phrase regularly and repetitively. The administration seems to think that they can erase memories just by saying the opposite of something. Maybe memories can be erased, but videotape can't. It's not quite 1984 yet -- even though they're trying.

This administration believes that appearances matter more than reality. Thus the changing of the slogan while maintaining the same strategy. As a public, we shouldn't much care what the Bushies call something. We should care about their actions, not their words. And their actions are dangerous and disastrous. It doesn't matter what you call it, invading Iraq and then refusing to exit the resulting killing field is calamitous. Call it staying the course, call it whatever you like, it's stupidity bordering on criminality.

So, come next Tuesday, let's make a public effort to not stay the course. Vote the incumbents out of office, and give our democracy a fresh start -- and the Bush administration something new to worry about for the next two years.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Studio 60

2006-09-19T09:34:00.000-04:00

Yeah, I know, "good TV" is an oxymoron. But every now and then something decent appears, and it's worth noting.

Despite the fact that my big-screen TV is on quite a bit, I really don't watch much regular network TV. The major exception in recent years was The West Wing, especially in the original Aaron Sorkin days. Good TV, that -- and occasionally great.

Well, there's a new West Wing on NBC this fall. Not surprisingly, it's by the West Wing team of Aaron Sorkin and Tommy Schlamme, and it's called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The show is a workplace drama set in a fictional SNL-type weekly live comedy show, and judging from the first episode, it's terrific. Terrific Sorkin dialog, terrific characters, terrific everything. Lots of intelligence, lots of realism, lots of heart. I can't say enough about it. If the quality holds (or builds) from the pilot episode, then Sorkin has another winner on his hands -- and I have a new weekly show I have to watch.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Conventions

2006-09-16T10:53:00.000-04:00

There's been a lot of fuss and bother this week about the Bush administration's push for new legislation defining U.S. obligations under the Geneva Convention. It's good to see some Republican heavyweights, such as John McCain and Colin Powell, coming down on the side of reason and opposing this bill. Pure and simple, Bush is arguing for the right to torture. It's no more complicated than that.

What McCain, Powell, and others rightly point out is that if we get to ignore the Geneva Convention, then our enemies do, too. So we want to torture some suspected terrorist we hold in a secret prison somewhere. If we do so, then that gives other countries the right to torture any of our soldiers or citizens they may be holding. Tit for tat -- or, if you prefer, the Golden Rule applied in reverse. Beware what you do to others, for they may do so onto you.

But, as with most things in the burgeoning Bush/Cheney dictatorship, this issue is about much more than it seems. It isn't just about the right to torture enemy combatants; it's about the administration's right to do anything they want, with no oversight whatsoever. It's all about the power, the enshrining of the executive as the sole branch of power in the U.S. government. Bush talks a lot about Islamic fascism, but he's well on his way in establishing fascist rule here in the United States. In Bush's world, no rules apply -- not the Geneva Convention, not the U.S. Constitution, not anything. The president and his men should be free to do whatever they please, with no restraints.

This vision of dictatorship America is horrifying. The new Bush doctrine should be stopped in its tracks, and its purveyors thrown from office -- and punished for their crimes against country and humanity. Enough is enough.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Power

2006-08-20T12:18:00.000-04:00

Assuming you can get past the all-JonBenet, all-the-time coverage this past week, you may have read that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the Bush Administration's warrantless, illegal, and unconstitutional wiretap program. The administration and their right-wing lackeys have predictably fired back with both personal (Taylor is a "Democrat-appointed judge," she's an activist judge, she's an appointee of that weak and evil Jimmy Carter) and generally jingoistic (supporters of this decision are supporting the terrorists, they're anti-American, they're traitors) responses. This decision, they say, weakens the country in its ongoing war on terror; it prevents us from wiretapping the terrorists.

But this decision has nothing to do about wiretapping the terrorists. Hell, I'm all for wiretapping terrorists; most people are. In spite of the hue and cry from the right-wingnuts, this decision doesn't prevent the government from doing that.

The administration claims that this decision would stop us from finding out about and stopping terrorist plots, like the one recently defused in England. That's a blatant lie. Here's the truth:

The U.K. plot was foiled by the British, not by Americans; our ability to wiretap (or not) was irrelevant in that case.
The CIA can wiretap any communications it wants to outside the U.S.; this decision has nothing to do with that.
The government can wiretap communications within the U.S. by simply asking for permission and receiving a warrant from a special FISA (Foreign International Surveillance Act) court. The FISA court almost always says yes; it's pretty much a blank check (much to the chagrin of civil libertarians).

The fact that the government has to go through warrant-friendly channels to do a wiretap is no great restraint; it doesn't hinder our anti-terrorist efforts in any way, shape, or form. The Bush Administration saying otherwise is simply untrue.

So what's the deal, then? If it's not about stopping the terrorists, what's all the fuss about?

It's about power.

You see, Bush and Cheney and their cohorts want no limits whatsoever on presidential power. Forget the Constitution, forget the two other branches of government, forget checks and balances. The executive branch must have the power to do whatever it wants, with no oversight from either Congress or the courts. It's the Imperial Presidency, one short step from dictatorship, that Bush and Cheney want.

And why do they want this? It's the unholy alliance between Bush, the rich fratboy who's used to always getting what he wants, and Cheney, the evil spawn of the Nixon Administration who wants to recoup the powers that Congress unjustly (in his view) stripped from the presidency after the Watergate scandal. It's about having no one to answer to; it's about unfettered, uncontrolled, unheard-of power.

The thing is, the current administration should be careful of what they ask for. If they succeed in creating an Imperial Presidency, what's to stop the next Democratic president from using those same powers against them? Short of a coup, this administration ends in two years, and the next guy gets to use all the power that these guys have massed -- and the next guy could use that power in ways unimagined. It won't always be you in charge; think of the future, guys.

And the future is just what Judge Taylor, the ACLU, and all other responsible Americans are thinking of. The country and the Constitution must endure, despite the efforts of the current despots.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Conspiracy theories

2006-08-15T11:49:00.000-04:00

It is, perhaps, human nature that conspiracy theories abound. Simple explanations for earth-shattering events never seem quite enough; there has to be something bigger behind the scenes to give the big events their proper weight.

I'm reminded of the story that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before the Japanese attacked and did nothing to stop it, calculating that America needed a shock like that to push the then-isolationist country into the war. (Read more here.) Or the various theories that claim the Bush administration was either aware of or behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. (Read more here.)

In the latest issue of The New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reports a story that some will no doubt include in these same ranks of conspiracy theories. But Hersh isn't a wild-eyed whack-job; he has a long and respected history of publishing truths that other reporters are either incapable of or unwilling to report. It's unlikely that this alleged conspiracy is fictional.

What Hersh reports is astonishing. According to his sources, the Israeli government plotted with higher-ups at the White House and the U.S. State Department to invade Lebanon and make war on Hezbollah, months before the recent military action. With these plans in hand, the Israelis only had to wait for the right pretext to go to war. It's FDR and Pearl Harbor all over again, except this really happened.

What did the U.S. get out of this? For Condi Rice and the State Department, the pending attack was "a way to strengthen the Lebanese government." For the White House (re: VP Cheney and his neocon cohorts; the President is apparently a non-factor when it comes to most international business), this was a test for their planned upcoming attack on Iran -- "the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran," as stated in the article.

And here's the thing. Despite the cries and uproar from the right-wing media, Hersh isn't a conspiracy theorist. He's a solid, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, responsible for exposing the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and other important stories. If Hersh says something is true, it probably is.

The fact that you probably haven't heard much about Hersh's report says something about the timidity of our country's mainstream media. This is an important story, global manipulation on a grand scale, and it deserves to be heard. Why isn't The New York Times reporting this story? Why do you have to go overseas (to the BBC and similar media) to find out about this? Our media ignoring this story is a conspiracy in and of itself.

Let's also not gloss over the most important part of this story: Cheney's White House is already planning an attack on Iran -- just as they planned an attack on Iraq long before 9/11 and the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. The 9/11 attacks were just the pretext that Cheney and his pals needed to give the green light to their Iraq invasion plans, just as the Israelis used the pretext of the kidnapping of two soldiers as justification to invade Lebanon. It's probably just a matter of time before some minor event serves as the trigger for the Bush administration's next war.

Makes you wonder about all those other conspiracy theories, doesn't it?

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

And things break again

2006-07-31T20:43:00.000-04:00

The saga of my sweet little Audi S4 convertible continues. I took it into the dealer today for the trunk shelf and antenna problems. The trunk shelf was broken, they need to order a new one. The antenna problem is actually a shorted cable harness -- the one that runs all the way from the radio up front to the antenna in the trunk lid. They have to order one of those, too. I asked if these two trunk-related problems were in any way caused by them disassembling the convertible top storage compartment in the trunk, and they said no. Of course not. Just a coincidence. Maybe I hit something, they suggested -- or snagged something in the trunk. Sure.

So I drove the car home, sans on-order parts, with the top up. That's the way they handed it to me, and it was too hot today to take the top down. Until this evening, that is, when I pressed the "top down" switch and -- lo and behold -- the top wouldn't go down. Again. It just unlatched and stayed there, no motor running. Had to do the manual operated top secure thing. Again. Just like a few weeks ago. Probably another bad microswitch. Related to the other problems? One wonders.

In any case, at least I'm not missing any prime top-down days. It's too damned hot around here to bake in an open-air cockpit. I am, for once, enjoying the cool comfort of an air conditioned sedan.

And I want my car fixed.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Things get fixed -- and break again

2006-07-30T10:56:00.000-04:00

With all the strife around us today, the problems of one little man don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. But still, they're my problems, so they matter to me.

Last time out, I wrote about the rash of technical problems I'd been experiencing. Well, what goes down must float up, so here's an update on how things worked themselves out.

First, my cable box problems, which amounted to a firmware update breaking the HDMI connection. No fix from the cable company (nor did I expect one, those technical morons), so my workaround was to switch from HDMI to component video. No big deal, aside from having to reprogram my remote to a different input on my TV.

Next, my Audi, which had a bum convertible top. The dealership fixed it right up, although it took two days, since they had to order the part (a bad microswitch). However, here's where things keep happening. I'm not sure whether it's related to the top fix or not (although it probably is, since they had the whole trunk assembly taken apart), but now the little shelf in my trunk that raises and lowers to accommodate the convertible top is broken; it won't raise to give me the extra trunk space when the top is up. Then, a day or so after I noticed that problem, the antenna on my car audio system (which is located in the trunk assembly) went bad. The AM/FM is completely unlistenable, and while XM satellite radio still has reception, I get an "ANTENNA" error message on the display. The Audi goes back to the dealership on Monday for additional repairs.

The dishwasher repairman made it out to repair my Bosch dishwasher. I thought a bad control panel was the culprit, but apparently a stuck latch was causing all the problems. A little jiggling with his screwdriver and everything was back to normal. And it only cost me $85. (Hell, I could have jiggled the damned screwdriver myself for a lot less than that.)

The folks at Niveus took good care of me concerning my broken Media Center PC. I had to pay to ship the hog back to California for repairs, but they took care of everything else. The problem was a bad power supply, which apparently fritzed the BIOS as it was going out. I got the monster back on Friday, but then more problems ensued -- no component video after boot up. Taking the advice of my contact at Niveus (who happened to be working over the weekend), I connected a second VGA monitor, set the video card for dual-monitor "clone" operation, and reset all the video settings for the big-screen TV's component connection. Not sure why it got bumfoozled, or how exactly I fixed it, but it's now working. I had an additional scare when the whole system started moving at a snail's pace, but that eventually worked itself out; it was almost like it had to take an hour or so to settle back into its old routine. (Actually, I think it had more to do with performing all the background maintenance -- spyware and antivirus updates, and so on -- that it hadn't had a chance to do over the past two weeks.) Anyway, it's back up and running, and I can't tell you how much I missed having my music. Kudos to the folks at Niveus for the exemplary service.

So, aside from my car radio and trunk thingie, I'm back in business. (And my Windows Vista installation continues to stay up and running, which is another plus.) All I want is my stuff to work. Is that too much to ask?

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Things break

2006-07-13T14:57:00.000-04:00

I've had a streak of bad luck this past week regarding the reliability of some of my most cherished possessions. And these aren't cheap and shoddy possessions. Cheap and shoddy was okay when I was younger and less well-to-do, but now that I have a bit more disposable income I try to buy nice things. Things that look good and perform well and are supposed to last. Supposed to, that's the operative phrase. Let me elaborate.

It all started about a week and a half ago. My cable company pushed a firmware upgrade down to my SA8300HD cable box/DVR, which promptly broke the HDMI connection between the box and my Sony big-screen TV. (Every time I switch inputs on my TV, the cable box video goes blank; it gets confused.) I promptly called my local cable company (after switching boxes on my own; this -- and some Internet research -- is how I determined it was a firmware problem), who sent a friendly enough guy out to take a look. He didn't know any more than I did (and, in fact, knew a little less -- thank you, Internet research), and pretty much said that I'd have to downgrade from HDMI to a component video connection, which I did. It now works okay, but it's not the way I'd like it to be -- nor is it the kind of performance I expect when I'm paying a hundred bucks or so a month to Big Cable.

Then, a few days later, I was up in Minnesota, visiting my girlfriend. The weather was nice, so I pushed the button in my high-performance, overpriced Audi S4 convertible to put the top down. Except it didn't go. The top unlatched, but the motor didn't activate, which left me with a half-up/half-down top that we had to manually put back in place -- something that wasn't intuitive, wasn't easy, and in fact was the exact opposite of how the instruction manual described it. Not cool. A few days later I drove back to Indianapolis, visited my friendly neighborhood Audi dealer, they ordered the proper part (a malfunctioning microswitch), and now everything is back in working order. Still, not something you expect to happen on a $60,000 automobile; I'm just glad I had the spare 15 minutes it took to get things manually latched down, instead of being stuck at a stoplight trying to get the top back up.

Back home again in Indiana, I came home last night and found my expensive and totally silent Bosch dishwasher acting funny. The front panel wouldn't function properly, the door wouldn't latch, and it appears that the electronics are all goobered up. So I put in a call to my friendly neighborhood Bosch repairman, who'll be out in five days to charge me $85 just to walk in the door and say hello. Again, not something you expect to happen with at top-of-the-line $1,000 dishwasher.

And it got worse. Over the past few days my extremely expensive (see a trend?) Niveus Media Center PC had been throwing off odd error messages about a missing CPU fan. (It doesn't have a CPU fan; it's a totally silent design.) I powered it down when I left the house yesterday morning, and when I tried to power it back up last night, nothing happened. Nada. Zilch. Dead dead dead. So I called my friendly not-so-local Niveus technical support line, left my message on their answering machine, and promptly got a call from their VP of Marketing. (That's one of the perks of being a technology writer; personal service when something breaks.) I described my problem, and the current thinking is that while I might just have a bad power supply, it's more likely the motherboard that's gone south. In any case, I'll have to pack up the monster and send it off to California for (free) repairs. Once again, not something you expect to happen with a uber-high-end $5,000 PC.

Like I said, it hasn't been a good week. About the only thing going my way is that I finally got the Windows Vista beta working on my desktop PC so it doesn't crash every 10 minutes. (It took a combination of upgrading to a new video driver, disabling User Account Control, disabling the automatic background hard disk search, and uninstalling the Vista version of Computer Associates' anti-virus program; now it works just fine, thank you.) I guess it goes to show that just because you spend a lot of money to buy nice things, those nice things can still be pieces of crap that break down when it's least convenient. Almost makes me wish for the days when I drove a cheap and shoddy AMC Gremlin; yeah, it broke down all the time, but at least I didn't pay an arm and a leg for it.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Superman returns

2006-07-09T14:33:00.000-04:00

I went to see Superman Returns last week, and I liked it. It's kind of funny how a lot of fanboys are picking nits at it, as well as how a few big-time critics (such as Roger Ebert) are finding the film to be something other than what they expected. But that's the problem with Superman; he's so many different things to so many different people, it's difficult for one single interpretation to please everyone.

In the case of Superman Returns, the choice was made to make the movie a sequel of sorts to the original Superman and Superman II movies. (And, in some eyes, a blatant "reimagining" or remaking of the first movie.) That set up direct comparisons between the first movie and this one, and between Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh as the Man of Steel. Some moviegoers found this new film lacking in comparison with the first; I found it superior.

To understand my take on the new movie, you have to understand that while I liked the original Superman movie in general, there were lots of pieces of it that I didn't like at all. I liked Chris Reeve's portrayal of the Big Blue Boy Scout, but thought his turn as Clark Kent was a bit too broad. I liked the Smallville scenes, but thought the Krypton passages boring and unnecessary. I didn't much like Margot Kidder as Lois Lane (too ditzy, not aggressive enough), and I hated Gene Hackman's portrayal of Lex Luthor (way too comedic). In general, I liked the Superman parts of Superman, but disliked just about everything else.

In Superman Returns, they took similar situations and played them more seriously -- which I think worked quite well. Routh's Superman is just as earnest as Reeve's was, but his Clark Kent is more believable -- mild mannered as opposed to nerdy. I also thought that Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane was a lot more believable as an aggressive reporter and independent woman, and Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor -- while still a tad too comedic for my tastes -- had the requisite amount of menace. Obviously, the special effects were a few generations improved on the 1978 version, and the subtext of Supes as the ultimate loner and reluctant savior added depth to the entire production. In short, I thought this movie was everything that the original Superman could have been, but wasn't. I liked it.

But I can understand why some people wouldn't. For those who really liked the 1978 version, Superman Returns was maybe too serious. And for those fanboys who stick to the comics canon, there was a lot to find offensive, most notably the apparent closure to Supes' relationship with Lois, and the (spoiler alert!) introduction of what appears to be the Kid of Steel. Not only was none of this in the comics, it also goes against the general trajectory of the comics version of the character.

Of course, everyone has their own idea of who and what Superman is. For folks of a certain age, Superman is Superman the movie, and the Man of Steel is Christopher Reeve. For folks of another age (myself included), Superman is The Adventures of Superman TV show, and the Man of Steel is George Reeves. For yet other folks Superman is the animated character from the 1940s Fleischer cartoons, or from the 1960s New Adventures of Superman cartoons, or the 1970s-1980s Superfriends cartoons, or the more recent Superman: The Animated Series and Justice League cartoons. Still others see Superman as Dean Cain in Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, or as Kirk Allyn from the old 1940s serials, or as Tom Welling in Smallville, or as one of the two relatively anonymous dudes from the syndicated Superboy TV series in the late 1980s.

That's not even counting the many ways Superman has been presented in the comics. Depending on when you grew up, the comics Superman might be Siegel and Shuster's squinty eyed crusader for social justice, Wayne Boring's barrel-chested Son of Krypton, Curt Swan's realistic-looking father figure, John Byrne's revamped Man of Steel, Alex Ross' older and grayer legend from Kingdom Come, or any one of dozens of other legitimate pencil-and-ink portrayals.

And that's the point. Superman is something different, and something personal, to everyone. To me, Superman in human form is always George Reeves from the 1950s TV series; in comic-book form, he always looks the way that Curt Swan drew him. That's because those are the versions of Superman that I grew up with as a kid. If I were born a little earlier or a little later, my personal Superman might have been from the Fleischer cartoons or the Christopher Reeve movies.

So I can understand some of the criticism of Superman Returns. My big beef was the choice to tie the new movie to the old ones, thus missing the opportunity to start things really fresh, as Batman Begins did with the Dark Knight franchise. I'm also not that down with Superman as such a young guy; I've always thought Supes was somewhere in his thirties, not his twenties. A younger Superman, as portrayed by Routh, Cain, or Welling, simply lacks authority for me. It's a personal thing.

Those minor annoyances aside, I did enjoy Superman Returns, and look forward to the inevitable sequel. I figure after they've done one or two more, they'll give Big Blue a few years' off and then reboot the franchise with a fresh take from a new team. That's ten years to wait for a truly new Superman -- just about enough time to give another generation its due.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Seattle: Good and Bad

2006-06-29T14:40:00.000-04:00

I just got back from a week-long vacation in Seattle with my two nephews, my girlfriend, and two of her kids. Seattle's a nice town; we had very nice (re: dry) weather while we were there, had a fun time.

The things we liked best were:

The food. Two-pound crabs? Thirty-ounce prime rib? Yeah, we indulged. Great food, especially the seafood.
Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame. The boys and I loved this. Not just SF movies, not just SF TV, but also lots of SF literature -- even if the boys had never read any Clarke or Bradbury . The best part was the huge screen with all the different spaceships from different media (from the Rama cylinder to the Millennium Falcon to the Planet Express ship from Futurama), and the interactive information about each ship.
Game On. The Pacific Science Center was host to the traveling Game On exhibit, chock full of videogames from Pong to the latest Xbox 360 titles. A fun way to spend an afternoon.
The Museum of Flight. I wasn't sure the nephs would like this, but they did -- and so did I. Lots and lots of aircraft from different eras, and a fair amount of (interesting) behind-the-scenes stuff, too.
The Space Needle. Good view. What more to say?

What didn't we like? Here's a short list:

Experience Music Project. Good premise, poor execution. There simply wasn't much there, there. Aside from the Jimi Hendrix room and the fun interactive instrumental jam area, it was a big letdown. Where was the history? Where was the music? The place was poorly laid out (which way to turn?), had little to no content, and cost way too much ($20/each). Underwhelming, to say the least.
Nintendo Welcome Center. Okay, so it wasn't really advertised as a tourist attraction, but you'd think Nintendo's U.S. headquarters would have a little something to show to visitors. All we found was a combination customer service desk and smallish gift store. Game over, Nintendo.
The streets. This is one of the most confusing cities I've ever visited, and that's saying a lot, given that I've traveled to both Boston and Milan. Streets change names every few blocks, major streets veer off into minor streets, street signs are obscured by foliage, just a real nightmare trying to find your way around. (It took us four tries to find our hotel -- and it was just a few blocks off I-5!)

We also liked our hotel, the Residence Inn at Lake Union. Nice location (centrally located and on a beautiful lake), very large facility, fun pool to play in, roomy rooms to sleep in (we did two-bedroom suites), free breakfasts every day, and a free dinner on Wednesday. The free meals almost made up for the bread we spent at the expensive dining establishments (Daniel's Broiler and Chandler's Crab Shack) we enjoyed across the street.

All in all, a very good vacation. Everyone enjoyed themselves, my nephs got along fine with my girlfriend's children, and the good points outweighed the bad. Seattle -- not a bad place to visit.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Windows Vista: What Not to Like

2006-06-14T13:21:00.000-04:00

I'm a writer by trade, and one of the many things I write about is technology. I typically don't blog about my work, but I'm making an exception today because I've found a new technology which is more annoying than helpful. I'm talking about the next version of Microsoft's operating system, Windows Vista.

I get to beta test Vista because I'm writing a book about it. I'm used to using unstable beta software, of which Vista definitely is, but aside from the expected early bugs, there's some very serious things wrong in the general design of the thing. I wish I could be more positive (I do have books to sell, after all), and I know that Vista will sell a lot of copies (because that's the only operating system you'll be able to buy after January 2007), but I think Microsoft fucked up royally here.

First, to start off on a positive note, let's discuss the things about Vista that I like:

Aero interface. The new Aero interface is nice. It's cool looking and 3D-like and translucent, and all that -- just like the Mac. Finally.
Internet Explorer 7. It has tabs. I like tabs. And, once again, Microsoft catches up to a competitor (Firefox), which is a good thing for us MS users.
Windows Media Player 11. Nice. Really nice. Better than iTunes nice. Much easier to use than previous versions, much easier on the eyes (big album art throughout), and it works well. This is now the best music player program on the market, bar none.
Windows Photo Gallery. If you need sophisticated photo editing, stick with Photoshop. But if you need simple touch ups (brightness/contrast, cropping, red eye removal, etc.), having it built into Windows is a good deal. Excellent addition to the Windows suite of products.
Windows Media Center. With XP, Media Center was a separate OS SKU. With Vista, it's built into the operating system -- everybody gets it. And if you're using a living room PC, you want it. The changes to Media Center in Vista are minor (new colors, horizontal scrolling instead of vertical scrolling, etc.); it's the fact all versions of Vista (save for Home Basic) come with it that's the big thing.
Better networking. MS changed the whole IP stack and redid the networking internals, and it shows. With XP, home networking tended to be a bit hit or miss -- computers disappearing from the network, shared folders showing up (or not) at random, that sort of thing. With Vista, networking simply works. Everything's where it's supposed to be, no unpleasant surprises.

So that's the good. (And note that most of the good things aren't really part of the operating system per se, but are rather accessory programs.) Now let's look at the bad -- the really bad:

User Account Control. Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that users have too much control over their PCs. All that control makes for sloppy security; users can install any program they want (even malicious ones), delete important files, you name it. Well, in the name of increased security (isn't everything, these days?), Microsoft has taken away the user's ability to do these supposedly administrator-level operations. It's all called User Account Control, and what it means for the average user is that you're now prompted (often twice!) whenever you try to install a new program, delete or move certain types of files or folders, or even empty certain files out of the Recycle Bin. It's a HUGE hassle, being prompted to confirm all this stuff that you do on a daily basis. In addition, many existing programs just assume that they have administrator rights (to write files, etc.), and simply won't work with UAC. In other words, users get a significantly worse experience under Windows Vista -- and people aren't going to like that. I recommend right now that Microsoft either turn off this invasive feature, or start staffing up their tech support lines; this one is going to catch the company a lot of flack. My solution? Turn off the damned UAC for your main account, which then makes Vista work just like XP, in terms of administrator privileges and the like. A bad, bad, really bad idea.
Windows Explorer and file management. In Windows Vista, Windows Explorer is back. That's not a bad thing. What's bad is what Microsoft has done to the Explorer window. First, there's no menu bar, which means no File menu. (Although you can display the menu bar by pressing the Alt button -- but what users are going to know or remember that?) Second, there's no task pane (like XP had), so all the obvious operations are no longer obvious. Instead, Vista has added an Organize button, which displays what is pretty much a mashup of the old task pane and File menu. But this is less than intuitive, and is a major step backwards in usability for non-technical users. Why hide the common file management tasks (copy, delete, move, rename, and the like)? Stupid, stupid, stupid. What was Microsoft thinking?
"Streamlined" Start menu. The old Start menu grew and grew and grew with each new program you added. Messy, but easy enough to figure out. The new Vista Start menu is "streamlined," which means that folders are collapsed until you click on them; they don't expand outwards, they grow and shrink within a very limited space. Neater, I supposed, than the old method, but harder for users to figure out. Another step backwards in the ease-of-use department -- and another example of Microsoft changing something that worked, for no apparent reason.
Sleep mode from the Power button. To help speed up shutdown and startup, Microsoft essentially is steering users away from powering down their computers. Instead, when you click the Power button (which you think would shut off your computer), Windows goes into Sleep mode. I hope Vista Sleep mode works better than XP Sleep mode (which was problematic, at best), but it's disingenuous to take something that users expect to do one thing (turn off the PC) and make it do another (leave the PC on while Windows goes to sleep). Misleading, it is.
Instant Search. In itself, this isn't a bad thing. Microsoft puts little search boxes all over the place, to better find files, programs, and the like, and this function appears to work better than the lame XP search. But I think Microsoft is wrong in thinking users are going to want to search for everything this way; some people, after all, like to organize, and searching instead of browsing -- while a Google conceit -- isn't the way most folks approach all their tasks. As I said, not necessarily a bad feature, just one in which Microsoft places too much emphasis.

I can go on and on, but basically I find Vista underwhelming. Once you get past the pretty interface and the improved applications, there's little there, there. And the security-related changes interrupt the user experience rather than enhance it; security should be invisible, not invasive. (And I do understand that Microsoft is reacting to a lot of bad press about Windows security holes; making users jump through hoops just to do their daily tasks is not an acceptable solution, however.) People are going to complain a lot about this, trust me.

Should you upgrade to Vista? No, not on your current PC. (You can, after all, download Internet Explorer 7 and Windows Media Player 11 separately for XP.) Yes, if you're buying a new PC -- if only because you'll have no choice; after January 2007, all new PCs will come with Vista pre-installed.

Will you like Vista? On the surface, probably yes; the Aero Glass interface is pretty cool. After you get to use it, maybe no; the User Account Control security is just too invasive -- and will crash too many of your old programs. I'd like to think that Microsoft will recognize the error of its ways and change or disable UAC before Vista ships to the public, but that's probably hoping for too much. Microsoft knows what's best for us, after all.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Catching up

2006-06-06T11:18:00.000-04:00

For those few demented individuals who actually read this blog, I owe you an explanation for the lack of recent posts. Well, actually, I don't owe you anything, but you're getting one, anyway.

First, I've been busy professionally. I just finished writing a big-ass book about Google, and am starting two new books right on the heels of that. I've also been very busy with an online project that I can't mention at this time, but it's very time consuming in a lot of ways and a very big deal. You'll know more in a few weeks.

Personally, I've been spending a fair amount of time commuting between my home in Indianapolis and my girlfriend's home in Minneapolis. That's 600 miles each way; it's a good thing I like to drive, and a have a car that I like to drive. I try to keep as normal a schedule as I can while up there, but the traveling alone takes two days (one each, up and back) each trip. Then there's the whole bit about spending time with my girlfriend, either in person or on the phone, and the simple fact is that something has to give. Hence the lack of blog postings.

I'd like to promise to keep a better posting schedule, but the hell with that. I'll continue to post whenever I damned well feel like it, or whenever I'm particularly annoyed at something, whichever comes first. That's the only promise I'll make.

(I have, BTW, been keeping up on my reading, viewing, and listening. Make sure you take a look at the books, DVDs, and CDs listed to the right of these postings -- they're as up-to-date as anything.)

Dentists

2006-05-03T16:18:00.000-04:00

I'd like to say I have a love/hate relationship with the dental profession, but there's not a lot of love there. Let me tell you what I mean.

Perhaps the best -- or least annoying -- dentist I ever had was back when I was a kid. This dentist was a lone duck, didn't have a team of dental hygienists or even a receptionist. If the phone rang, he had to stop the tooth cleaning to answer it. Unfortunately, over time this guy's practice became a tad antiquated. Started to remind me of Sir Laurence Olivier in Marathon Man. ("Is it safe?") I needed a slightly more modern approach, so I moved on.

After several years of not denting (or is it dentoring?), I got a new dentist nearer my home. This guy was very aggressive; after decades of never having a cavity, this guy discovered something that needed fixing on every visit. And he wanted me to visit every three months, more often than my doctor wanted to see me. To top it off, he had the most annoying dental hygienist imaginable, overly perky and always talking about some damned thing that I just couldn't care less about. I gave this guy the heave-ho after a couple of years.

My latest dentist isn't drill happy, and only wants to see me once a year. So good so far. The problem is, he's forgotten who the customer is. I made an appointment a year ago for a cleaning today, and when I showed up ten minutes late, he wouldn't take me. Wanted me to reschedule. After 12 months, ten minutes isn't that big a deal. And, besides, it's his job to serve me and my schedule, not the other way around. Frankly, I view visiting the dentist as a minor annoyance at best, and you have to work harder than that to keep me as a customer. I told the receptionist thanks but no thanks, and now I'm looking for a new dental practitioner.

Bottom line, I hate dentists -- even when they're not poking their fingers in my mouth.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Star-spangled hypocrisy

2006-05-02T14:21:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, in response to the artificial controversy surrounding a Spanish-language version of "The Star-Spangled Banner," President Bush said the following:

"I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

Okay. Then explain this:

When visiting cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, or Philadelphia, in pivotal states, [Bush] would drop in at Hispanic festivals and parties, sometimes joining in singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in Spanish, sometimes partying with a "Viva Bush" mariachi band flown in from Texas.
(Thanks to ThinkProgress, as first reported by Kevin Phillips in his book, American Dynasty.)

Or the fact that the U.S. State Department lists four different Spanish-language versions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" on their website.

Or the fact that all the way back in 1919, the United States officially commissioned a Spanish-language version of "The Star-Spangled Banner."

I find the entire uproar over this issue quite embarrassing -- especially the fact that two-thirds of Americans apparently agree with the President's latest statement. I simply don't see what the fuss is about; I'd rather have Hispanic-Americans singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in Spanish than singing the Mexican national anthem in any language.

And the President's stance? Call it flip-flopping, call it hypocrisy, call it what you like, but it remains that he said one thing when he was running for election and is saying another thing now. He either lied to Hispanics then or is lying to rabid white males now. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Bush -- you're either with us or against us, you can't be both.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Bruegger's Bagels: Good and Bad

2006-04-26T17:53:00.000-04:00

I've been spending a lot of time up in Minnesota, where they have a Bruegger's Bagel store on every corner. This is a good thing; Bruegger's is my favorite bagel place. We don't have Bruegger's here in Indiana, where Einstein's is the ruling chain. I like Einstein's, but I love Bruegger's.

So I've been eating my fair share of bacon and egg bagel sandwiches, which is a very good thing. But last week I decided to go a little lighter, and ordered a plain bagel with hummus. Imagine my surprise when the clerk rang my bill and came up with a $3.69 charge.

I pointed out to the clerk that a bagel with smear should be $.79. The clerk, in response, pointed to a menu item under the "deli sandwiches" section that said "Hummus, $3.69." That was 70 cents more than a bacon and egg bagel sandwich, and the same price as a turkey or roast beef sandwich. I pointed out this fact, and the clerk offered to put more hummus on my bagel. I replied that this wasn't the point, that the issue here was that I didn't order a sandwich, I ordered a bagel with a bit of hummus spread on it, just like they do with cream cheese and the like. Again, the clerk offered to put more hummus on my bagel. I pointed out that the exact same item at Einstein's cost $.79. The clerk once again offered to spread more hummus on my bagel. One last time, I noted that I could purchase an entire tub of hummus and a single plain bagel for less than the cost of this so-called hummus sandwich. The clerk just shrugged her shoulders. Bah!

At that point I gave up, but did email Bruegger's management about the situation -- after finding out that this was a chain-wide thing, not just a single-store aberration. So far, nothing but a form letter response, but here's hoping. I really like Bruegger's, but find this issue exasperating. Why should a knife-full of hummus cost more than a similar amount of cream cheese? It doesn't make any sense to me.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Immigrants, Part 2

2006-03-29T14:01:00.000-05:00

My previous post on Hispanic immigrants proved prescient. As I write these words, Congress is debating sweeping new immigration legislation. The debate is tearing the Republican party apart, as it exposes two wildly contradictory wings of the party.

The first wing, which tends to call itself nativist, can be more accurately described as bigoted and racist. Led by ethically-compromised (and aspiring presidential candidate) Senator Bill Frist, these Republicans want to send Hispanic immigrants back to wherever they came from, before they move into their monochromatic neighborhoods and marry their lily-white daughters. They can make all the "we have to protect America" arguments they want, but the bottom line is that these narrow-minded, hate-filled, quasi-white supremacists hate people of color (any color), and would like to see an all-white America devoid of Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, and all other non-Western European descendants. (They probably don't like the French, either.) Frist and his intolerant ilk are the cleaned-up, pseudo-respectable, 21st century equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. Short of lynching the Mexicans, they want to deport them.

Opposing these nativists/racists is the corporate wing of the Republican party. Led by the likes of Wal-Mart and other low-paying employers, these Republicans like Hispanic immigrants just fine. That's because the influx of Hispanic workers represent cheap labor to these bald-faced capitalists, and getting rid of them would mean they'd have to hire higher-salaried American workers in their stead. This profit-minded thinking has inspired "moderate" Republicans -- such as John McCain and Arlen Spector -- to endorse an amnesty program for those illegal aliens already here. Though the motivation may be less than pure, it's actually the best idea on the table, and has also been endorsed by the Democratic minority.

There are other Republican views on the issue, of course. President Bush tried to navigate a compromise between the two extreme wings of his party by proposing a three-year "guest worker" program, but the stupidity of the solution only served to piss everyone off. Then there are the security nuts, who think that building a big wall between the U.S. and Mexico will keep terrorists out of the heartland. (But why stop with Mexico -- how about another wall sealing off the Canadian border, and maybe stopping all incoming plane flights, as well?) These viewpoints seem to be subsidiary to the main argument, however, and don't factor much in the current debate.

It's kind of fun to see the Republicans tearing themselves apart on this issue. As noted in the new book American Theocracy, today's Republican party is a fragile coalition of competing constituencies -- much like the Democratic party has always been. But in the Republicans' case, what's good for one segment isn't always good for the others, so it's really just a matter of time before their "small tent" collapses. Social conservatives (religious or racist) can't long live with corporate fiscal conservatives, nor with power-hungry neo-conservatives. I give Bush (and Rove) credit for holding the coalition together, but it's a temporary collaboration that is now starting to fray.

On the immigration issue, here's what I think we should do. First, we need to treat our Hispanic visitors as human beings. That means offering citizenship to all who want it, and offering essential services to all who need them. Second, we need to pay these folks the going wage, so that they're not taken advantage of and so that their presence doesn't depress wages for native American workers. Third, we need to work with the Mexican government to improve living conditions (and increase wages) in our neighboring country, so fewer Mexicans are tempted to head north to better their lot.

Finally, we need to work much harder to assimilate both visiting and resident Hispanics into the American culture. Our latest immigrants are not blending into the American melting pot as previous generations of immigrants did, and that's not good for them or for our country. Our culture becomes richer when new immigrants are added to the mix, and those immigrants need to learn to live and to thrive in their chosen new society. It's not good for Hispanics to live in a parallel version of the United States; separate but equal has never been a winning strategy.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Immigrants

2006-03-11T18:20:00.000-05:00

America is a country rife with contradictions, not the least of which is the fact that we are a nation of immigrants who hate immigrants. That is, each previous generation of immigrants hates the following generation of immigrants. It was okay for our grandparents to immigrate, but it has to stop there; we don't want new folks to come in and spoil the fun.

Of course, it's much more complex than that -- although the description is apt. It doesn't matter that all of our families came from somewhere else (save for the few remaining Native Americans, of course -- but that's another story); we resent the intrusion of whomever happens to be immigrating today.

In generations past, however, immigrants eventually were assimilated into the culture. Typically not first-generation immigrants, but by the time the second generation made it to the workplace, they were firmly integrated into American culture. Germans, Polish, Irish, Russians, the country of origin didn't matter; the sons and the daughters of these immigrants became true Americans, in every sense of the word.

This second-generation assimilation doesn't necessarily seem to be happening with today's batch of immigrants, however. Instead of immigrants adapting to the existing American culture, our culture appears to be adapting to accommodate the current generation of Latino immigrants. You see it everywhere, from the growth of Spanish-language media to the de facto bilingualism in locales with large Latino populations. It may be too early to tell, but it appears that today's Hispanic immigrants are retaining their native culture and not fully integrating into the American culture; instead of adding to the melting pot, we're creating a dual culture unlike anything we've seen in the past.

This influx of Hispanic immigrants who are not adapting to the American culture frightens many people. There are many reasons for this -- some justified, some not.

On one level, opposition to Mexican immigration is simple racism -- we don't want those stinking Mexicans living in our neighborhoods. There has always been prejudice against people not like exactly us, people of a (slightly) different color, people who come from a different place, people who speak a different language. Many ignorant citizens are afraid of and therefore irrationally hate Mexicans; they think Mexicans are racially inferior, and a danger to our "American way of life." This argument, of course, is despicable -- but unfortunately widespread. It should come as no surprise that many opponents of Mexican immigration, no matter what arguments they make publicly, are private racists.

On another level, opposition to Mexican immigration is a somewhat rational concern over the allocation of increasingly scarce public resources -- why should we let those freeloading foreigners live off the public dole? The argument doesn't have to be that crass; how we disperse our public funds is a legitimate point of discussion, especially when the Republicans-in-charge keep cutting the budget for essential public services. With class size increasing and extracurricular activities being cut, can we really afford to educate the children of illegal immigrants alongside our native-born children? Of course, this argument tends to ignore the fact that even illegal immigrants make positive contributions to our economy and our society, including contributing to our tax base. I haven't done the math, but it could be argued that the financial impact of today's illegal immigrants is a net positive -- that is, they contribute more to the economy than they take out. This will become increasingly so as the baby boomer generation retires and ages; we'll need as many Mexican immigrants as possible not just to care for the aging boomers, but also to take their place in the job market.

On yet another level, opposition to Mexican immigration is a justified argument against America's increasing racial and cultural bifurcation. In previous generations, we didn't require bilingual accommodation for the immigrant population; we had one unofficial American language, and immigrants were expected to learn it. Yes, the American way of life changed (and, in fact, became richer) due to the injection of immigrant culture, but we didn't expect the existing culture to change completely to accommodate the immigrants; the immigrants were expected to adapt to the prevailing culture, not the other way around. Can America as we know it continue to exist if it adopts too much of the immigrants' Hispanic culture -- or will America become a kind of Mexico North, losing its historical identity? Do we really want a polarized America, with one side composed of affluent Caucasians of European descent and the other composed of poor Hispanics, each side speaking their own language and living in their own isolated cultural cocoon? If we go this route, the ideal of the American melting pot will devolve into separate but unequal societies, separated by an insurmountable cultural divide. This is not the America of our forefathers, but it may be the America we bequeath to our grandchildren.

The answer to the growing immigration problem, alas, is not to put a halt to future immigration. For one thing, we can't stop the tide. Previous generations of immigrants were constrained by how many people could fit into a limited number of boats to cross the ocean to our shores. Today's generation of immigrants have no such constraint; immigrating, legally or illegally, is as simple as walking across our huge and porous physical border. Some politicians advocate building an unimaginably long fence from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, but this is not only impractical but also easily surmounted; there isn't enough fence in America, nor enough border control guards, to protect every linear foot of our border and prevent determined immigrants from scaling or tunneling under such a barrier. No matter what measures we enact, the immigrants will continue to come -- until, that is, there is no benefit for them to do so.

The solution to the influx of Mexican immigrants isn't an American one, it's a Mexican one. To stem the tide of immigrants from Mexico, we must remove the benefits of immigrating. That doesn't mean making things worse for these hard-working immigrants here in America; it means making things better for them in their homeland. If we can work with our neighboring country to improve the conditions for average Mexicans, there will be less reason for them to cross the border to find employment in America. Water always finds its own level, and the reason so many Mexicans are immigrating to the United States is that their economic fortunes are better here. Improve their lot at home, and they won't need to travel north for work; the water level will be equalized.

Until this happens, we have to deal with reality. That doesn't mean deporting illegals who are already here, nor depriving them of basic rights and public services. Give them medical care, give them schooling, give them driver's licenses; treat them like the residents -- legal or not -- that they are. But resist the urge to redefine American culture in their image. It's not racist to insist that newcomers adjust to the existing culture; it's not culturally insensitive to expect visitors to speak our language and adapt to our way of life. If I immigrated to Mexico (or France or China or Germany), I wouldn't expect the citizens of that country to speak my language or change their culture to accomodate me; I'd expect to learn their language and ways. The same should apply here in the United States. We should be gracious hosts, and we should expect our newest vistors to be gracious guests. We can -- and must -- learn to live together.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

True colors

2006-02-26T16:03:00.000-05:00

For five years now, the Bush administration has played the terror and fear card for all that it's worth. Practically anything and everything the administration does is justified as part of the so-called "war on terror;" any critics of administration policies are decried as weak on security and possibly traitorous. The security issue has been the administration's strength; it's earned Bush support from many quarters of the populace who would otherwise be opposed to his disastrous economic and social policies. As long as Bush remained strong on security, all of his ill-conceived foreign interventions, his attempts to restrict the people's civil liberties, his class-busting tax and economic policies, and even his monomaniacal strivings for an all-powerful imperial presidency got pretty much overlooked by a frightened populace.

But no more.

This week, Bush showed his true colors by stridently supporting a deal to turn control of key U.S. ports to a company from the United Arab Emirates -- the same country that financed the 9/11 attacks and has been a haven for terrorists of all stripes. Even Bush's most dyed-in-the-wool supporters were taken aback by the brazen abandonment of U.S. security in favor of what is quite obviously a financial windfall for some members of the Bush administration. Bush's craven support of this deal -- even threatening to veto any attempt to block the deal, when he hasn't yet used a single veto in his six years in office -- speaks to the power of money over all other issues in the Bush administration. It's not really about security, or terrorism, or fighting the Islamist evil-doers; it's about the all-mighty dollar, and about Bush being able to do whatever the hell he wants to do, everyone else (including his former supporters) be damned.

At the very least, Bush's support of the UAE port deal bespeaks a political tone deafness (as pointed out by several members of Bush's own party); at its worst, it's selling out American security for financial benefit. Even worse, Bush seems to think that his actions -- no matter how extreme or politically illogical -- should be strictly obeyed, no questions asked. It's Bush as the power-mad dictator, finally going over the edge in a way that astounds and confounds even his supporters. By insisting on approval of the UAE deal, Bush's actions contradict all the fear-mongering he's instilled in his red-state base; how does he jibe his support of Arab-run port security with his NASCAR-dad supporters' fear of all things Arabic?

It's actually quite humorous to listen to Bush's remaining toadies try to wiggle their way around this one. There are still a few right-wing shouting radio heads that are contorting themselves to all end in an attempt to justify Bush's support for the deal. It's really funny to listen to Rush and Sean and their fellow travelers accuse Democrats (and Republicans) opposed to the deal of prejudice against Arabs, especially when they're the same bloviators who inspired that prejudice among their listeners. It's equally amusing to hear them play down the deal as not at all important to national security, when prior to this every little thing that popped up was played as a major security issue. You can't have it both ways, guys; your hypocrisy is evident even to your red-state listeners.

There are so many crimes Bush has committed against America that this one actually seems minor; it's ironic that the symbolism of the thing elevates it to a level that could be politically fatal to the administration. A new day is dawning over America -- the public is finally waking up and realizing that the emperor has no clothes.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

A tale of two cities

2006-02-18T22:19:00.000-05:00

I live in Indianapolis, but have been spending a fair amount of time in Minneapolis. While there is an obvious similarity in names, there are lots of subtle differences between the two cities -- despite the fact that they both purport to be nice, sedate, family-friendly Midwestern cities. Here's some of what I've found.

Nice... and nicer. Both Indianapolis and Minneapolis pride themselves on being friendly cities where everyone is super nice. Only one of those cities lives up to the niceness hype, however, and it's not the one in Indiana. I've lived in central Indiana all my life, and the people there tend to be as rude and insular in a way that blends the worst of big city and small town cultures. Minneapolitans, however, take the niceness thing personally; the concept of "Minneapolis nice" is real, the people here going out of their way to be friendly and polite and genuinely helpful. Score a big one for our northern neighbors, at the expense of those snarky Hoosiers. (Not all Hoosiers are nasty and grumpy, of course, but a lot are -- and my apologies to those truly nice people in the Hoosier state.)

Passive-aggressive. It's probably part of the niceness equation, but Hoosiers are much more aggressive drivers than their northern brethren, who tend to take polite driving to its illogical extreme. Hoosiers are pushy, rude, and extremely lead-footed drivers, constantly cutting one another off in traffic and being somewhat reckless about it. Minneapolitans, in contrast, always let the other driver cut in front of them, hesitate to merge at speed on the interstate (that would be too pushy), and actually cause accidents by stopping to help stranded drivers by the side of the road. Speed is also a factor; Hoosiers tend to drive 15-20 miles over the stated speed limit, while Minneapolitans drive at or under what the signs say. Put another way, a typical Hoosier driver would eat a typical Minneapolis driver for lunch.

Speed freaks. Speaking of speed, let's spend a moment discussing the Greatest Spectacle in Racing -- which is practically unheard of in Minnesota. I'm talking about the Indianapolis 500, and Indy car racing in general. It's safe to say that few people in Minneapolis have ever heard of A.J. Foyt or Johnny Rutherford (Mario Andretti, maybe...); everyone in Indy knows their favorite racers. Sorry Minneapolis; Indy is the home of world-class automobile racing, and all the hockey players in the great white north can't cover the Speedway's five hundred glorious miles.

Hockeyball? Indiana is basketball country (remember the movie Hoosiers?); Minnesota is hockey country. I don't know a puck from a hat trick, but I do know a three-pointer from a three-second violation. 'Nuff said.

Health and beauty. Minneapolis is an amazingly healthy city. In spite of spending more months of the year than I like to think of under near-arctic conditions, Minneapolitans like to get outside and partake of all forms of exercise, from winter sports to summer walks around their ten thousand lakes. (And they have tons of wonderful parks in which to do this.) Indiana, on the other hand, ranks as one of the most unhealthy states in the nation. Hoosiers are, to generalize, fat, out of shape, cigarette smoking, doughnut eating porkers. The people of the Twin Cities are much healthier, in all ways -- slimmer, trimmer, fitter, and less likely to die of lung cancer. Smoking appears to be mandatory in Hoosierland; Minneapolis is pretty much a smoke-free city. As a bonus, Minneapolis is filled with fair-skinned, blonde-haired women; Indy isn't. Guess which burb I like best in this regard...

White... and whiter. Neither Indianapolis or Minneapolis are what you'd call ethnically diverse cities. That said, Indianapolis has a sizeable African-American community, a growing number of Hispanics, and a surprising number of Asian immigrants. Minneapolis has... well, a lot of fair-skinned, blonde-haired, white people. Yes, there are some blacks up north, and a decent number of Asians, but the great white north is just that -- primarily white.

Left and right. Minneapolis is a blue state, primarily Democratic and fairly liberal. Indianapolis is George Bush country, a red state where Democrats aren't just the minority, they're pretty much missing in action. (Believe it or not, many local races don't even have a Democrat on the ballot.) I'm a liberal. I hate living in Indiana. Minneapolis is a much more friendly environment for old-school lefties like me.

Weather... or not. In Indianapolis, the TV weathermen report a winter near-miss like this: "Good news! The winter storm hit north of the city, so we only got a dusting of snow." In Minneapolis, a similar situation is reported like this: "Bad news! The winter storm hit south of the metro area, so we only got a dusting of snow." That's right, the Minneapolitans like their snow -- which means that they're really hating this winter. January was the warmest month in recorded history, and there's barely any snow cover on the ground. Not the normal sub-zero, several feet of snow piled on the ground type of weather they've grown to know and love. Which has the locals complaining, of course. Indy has had a similar uber-warm, near-snowless winter season, and no one is complaining about 50-degree days in February. A marked cultural difference.

Weather, part deux. One last thing about the weather. In normal years (and this year is anything but), Minneapolis is damned cold in the winter time. Indiana, not so much. Minneapolis also gets a shitload of snow, none of which ever melts, which results in streetside piles of Everestian heights. In Indiana, what snow we get (and we do get some) melts within a week or so, so there aren't those imposing snowpiles that last until the spring thaw. The only good thing about Minneapolis winters is that the sun actually shines; you might get 12 inches of snow one day, but it's nice and sunny the next. An Indiana winter is an exercise in bleakness; it's not unusual to go several weeks without the sun ever peeking through the depressing gray clouds. So, yeah, Minneapolis might have testicle-chilling cold, but at least you won't get seasonal affective disorder from too many cloudy days.

Bottom line, I like both places, but I'm starting to like Minneapolis more -- in spite of the weather and the slow drivers. Minneapolis is all that Indianapolis promises to be, but seldom is; Indianapolis is an aging rust-belt city that's not very friendly to singles, strangers, or anyone remotely artistic or high-tech. Minneapolis is a thriving metropolis with lots to offer in the way of both intellectual and physical pursuits; the locals are also more welcoming to individuals of all stripes. Sorry, Indy, but Minneapolis has what it takes -- Indianapolis doesn't.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Report card

2006-02-17T10:00:00.000-05:00

Just so we don't forget what's what in the continually expanding bog of quicksand that is the Bush II administration, here's a short list of the crimes against the country committed by Bush, Cheney, et al, courtesy of right-wing Wall Street Journal opinion page editor Daniel Henninger. (Good to know even the Tories are keeping count!)

The stolen 2000 election (and the co-opting of the primarily Republican-nominated Supreme Court)
The possible stealing of the 2004 election (I'm just saying...)
The Enron corporate fiasco
Cheney's top-secret energy task force (and subsequent carving up of America's energy future between the big energy companies)
The continuing anti-"sunshine" actions designed to keep presidential papers secret and out of the eyes of the general public
Class-busting tax cuts for the wealthy (and resultant cuts in funding for valuable public programs), designed to eliminate the middle class and destroy what Republicans think of as the welfare state
Ignoring numerous warnings about al Queda (and botching internal intelligence efforts) that in effect enabled the 9/11 attacks to take place
The disgraceful response to the 9/11 attacks -- in effect channeling public sentiment into unjustified warmongering
The lying to the country (and to the United Nations) about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as a pretext for war
The unmitigated gall in linking, however subtly (but quite effectively), Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks
The unwarranted, unprovoked invasion of Iraq -- a country that posed no danger, immediate or otherwise, to America -- and the resultant deaths of at least 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
The subsequent operational mismanagement of the Iraqi occupation, which set back that country's infrastructure by several decades and has led to what is in effect a nascent civil war
The related monetary mismanagement of the Iraqi occupation, in which billions of dollars have gone missing and favored "contractors" (such as Halliburton) have received no-bid contracts worth even more billions of dollars
The also-related underfunding of our fighting force, particularly in the form of non-existent body armor for our soldiers, forced conscription of unwilling National Guard troops (and equally unwanted extensions of their tours of duty), and the disgraceful way soldiers are treated by the military when they return home from combat
The illegal imprisonment of "enemy combatants," without any First Amendment or Geneva Convention rights, at Guantanamo Bay (and, via the use of "extraordinary rendition," in torture chambers throughout various uncivilized nations around the globe)
The use of torture (either implicitly condoned or explicitly ordered) on prisoners in Abu Grahib prison and at Guantanamo Bay
The criminally negligent response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster
Various and sundry financial/funding/lobbying scandals within the administration and the ranks of the Republican party, from Tom DeLay to Duke Cunningham to Bill Frist (and quite possibly beyond)
The illegal leaking of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, from deep within the bowels of the administration
The President's admitted unlawful and unconstitutional wiretapping of American citizens, in itself quite clearly an impeachable offense
The seeking of virtually unlimited presidential authority, in a bid to undermine the Constitution with an all-powerful imperial presidency

That may not be everything, but it's a good starter list. (And I didn't even mention Dick Cheney's shooting of his hunting partner -- the first VP shooting incident since Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton.)

Of all these sins, I'm surprised that being the home team when al Queda attacked New York isn't seen as a bigger deal by the public. Having the world's largest terrorist attack take place on your watch is at best extreme negligence, at worst something bordering on enabling behavior or co-conspiracy. The fact that Bush then used that attack as a rationale to go to war in Iraq (and kill more than 100,000 civilians in the process) is an Orwellian act of such magnitude as to be almost inconceivable -- except that it really happened. You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Anyway, lest we (and our media) get too complacent, it's good to have a copy of this list handy. This isn't your average, run-of-the-mill, incompetent administration we have here, folks; this is the most dangerous, the most malevolent bunch of power-hungry despots our country has ever seen. And, given the general uber meat-eating nature of American politicians, that's saying a lot.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Don't shoot the messenger

2006-02-14T21:37:00.000-05:00

No, this isn't a post about Dick "Shoot First, Dodge Questions Later" Cheney's birdshot incident, as tempting as that might be. (And why was he shooting at Dan Quayle to begin with?) Instead, this is about Al Gore's recent speech to the Jeddah Economic Forum, in which he addressed various and sundry incidents of abuse against Arabs in America following the 9/11 attacks. As has become predictable, the right-wing shouting class are all over Gore on this one -- not so much countering his remarks as attacking him personally as a traitor and a loon.

Let's look first at what the former VP said. Gore stated that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the September 11, 2001, attacks. He said that Arabs in America had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges," and "held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

Like him or not (and most conservatives obviously don't), Big Al spoke the truth. The facts are that, in the weeks and months after 9/11, the U.S. government did round up thousands of people of Arab descent, often on spurious charges (and sometimes on no formal charges at all), and held them -- often without access to lawyers -- for days, weeks, even months at a time. Some of these Arab-Americans were subsequently released, some were sent back to their countries of origin on lightweight visa-related charges, but none were proved to be involved in terrorist-related activities. It was an Arab-flavored witchhunt, pure and simple, a series of incidents embarrassing at best, wholly disgraceful at worst. (I remember the story, told after the fact, of an Indiana man whisked away from his family in the dead of night, held without charges, his family not notified of where he was or why he was there; the man was just a simple merchant with the wrong kind of surname.)

While some right-wingnuts are disputing Gore's facts, most are attacking him personally. And viciously. His remarks have been called "inappropriate in a time of war," outrageous, repugnant, loathsome, ugly, insidious, even treasonous. Gore himself has been called confused, disloyal, shrill, "nutty," insane, and traitorous. He has been accused of bribery (making the remarks in return for Arab money) and of inciting Arab violence against the U.S. He has been labeled Osama bin Al, Al of Arabia, Sheikh al-Gore, and Al-Queda (with the emphasis on the "Al"). The nicest criticism I found labeled Gore as "just wrong;" the worst wished violence upon his person. One blogger even tried to make a Cheney-Gore connection, by joking that "while Cheney errantly shot off his shotgun, former Vice President Gore purposefully shot off his mouth." Another suggested that Gore must be "off his medication."

So much for reasoned, dispassionate political debate.

People, we need to debate the facts. Instead, conservatives insist on Rottweiller politics, always attacking the messenger in the attempt to draw attention away from the message. Al Gore's timing and choice of venue might be questionable, but his statements were truthful and should be debated. Just because he brings up difficult issues doesn't make him crazy or traitorous. Addressing our country's faults in an effort to improve the land where we live is the ultimate act of patriotism -- especially in the face of withering personal attacks. Is it any wonder why our best and brightest avoid public service? Don't shoot the messenger -- deal with the message.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Hitch on Islamic reactionaries

2006-02-04T18:08:00.000-05:00

Christopher Hitchens has taken a brief break from being an apologist for the Bush administration's Iraq war, and penned a powerful piece about the Islamic world's violent reaction to a series of Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad. It's nice to see the old contrarian back in fine form, and his take on the subject is one I wholly endorse.

Click here to read Hitchens' column.

BTW, European governments continue to shrink in fear from the wrath of extremist Muslims -- as does the U.S. government. The Bush administration issued this rather disturbing statement:

"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."

As Hitchens points out, not only does this equate religious criticism with racism, it also completely abrogates the concept of freedom of speech. Our government (and its equally cowardly European counterparts) wants to muzzle any speech critical of certain religions. Is this political correctness taken to its illogical extreme, or is it simply fear of how offended religious fanatics might react? Given how un-PC the Bush administration usually is, I think it's cowardice, a sign of how afraid our weak-willed leaders truly are of reactionary extremists. (And Muslim extremists are even more extreme than their Christian or Jewish brethren; does anyone remember the fatwa issued when Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses?)

It's time for religious moderates of all stripes to stand up to these vocal and violent extremists. Religious fervor, in the wrong hands, can be a very dangerous thing.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Religious intolerance (Islamic edition)

2006-02-03T15:28:00.000-05:00

I've written before of my intolerance of religious intolerance. To date, my rants have been against the intolerant Christian extremist right, but they're not the only intolerant religious fanatics out there. Case in point: the recent "Islamic rage" over perceived sacrilegious political cartoons in the European press.

I'll give the Christian right a little credit; when they take offense to something, they normally don't riot in the streets. (They're more into letter writing and advertiser boycotts.) Offended Muslims, on the other hand, tend to act out a bit more. Not only have Islamic leaders spoken out against the apparently insulting cartoons ("Any insult to the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, is an insult to more than 1 billion Muslims and an act like this must never be allowed to be repeated," said Hamid Karzai, Afghan president -- and a moderate Muslim leader), but hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets, and gunmen in Gaza surrounded the local office of the European Union and threatened to kidnap citizens of the countries where the cartoons were published. Look for burning effigies soon.

While I believe that all religious beliefs should be treated with respect, that doesn't obviate the right to freedom of expression, or of freedom of the press. Just because some in a given religion might take offense to a particular statement doesn't mean the statement should be repressed. Freedom of speech trumps self-righteousnesss any day, no matter how blasphemous the statements might be perceived.

Religious zealots should not be kow-towed to. When Christian extremists take issue with a television show like The Book of Daniel, the TV networks and stations shouldn't back down and take it off the air. (Which, unfortunately, is what happened in the case of the aforementioned show -- although, to be fair, the show really sucked and nobody watched it, anyway.) When reactionary Muslims take issue with newspaper cartoonists lampooning the foibles of the Islamic world, the newspapers (and their governments) shouldn't back down and censor themselves. When it comes to free speech, any person or organ has the right to offend just about anyone else. It's the nature of liberty.

Unfortunately, the Europeans are really frightened of a militant Islamic response, and are quickly backing away from the issue. Here's the response to date, courtesy of FT.com:

In an effort to calm Muslim anger, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, was set to appear last night on the al-Arabiya satellite news channel to explain his government's position. He also called a meeting of all foreign ambassadors in Copenhagen for today as the debate in Europe polarised defenders of press freedom and religious groups.
Ursula Plassnik, foreign minister of Austria, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said she understood the offence Muslims felt, adding that EU leaders needed to "clearly condemn" acts that insult religion.
Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary-general, said he believed "freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions."

Wussies. Religious fanatics should not be allowed to rule the day. It doesn't matter whether they're Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Pagan, religious extremists have to live in the same world as the rest of us, and play by the same rules; their beliefs cannot be held above society's laws and liberties. Governments and people everywhere should stand up for the right to speak freely and to criticize without fear of reprisal; religious freedom comes with the freedom to be disagreed with and insulted. It doesn't matter whether the offended (and offending) religious followers are in the minority or the majority, tyranny in the form of religious fascism cannot be allowed. Contrary opinions should not be condemned, they should be embraced.

This is, of course, one of the problems with religion. Believers easily turn into fanatics, and fanatics threaten the fabric of our society. If you're offended by someone or something you take as blasphemous, turn the other cheek; don't force your extremist views on the rest of us, and definitely don't try to censor those who disagree with you. Differing religious beliefs aren't blasphemous, nor is criticism sacrilegious. If the religious among us can't be tolerant of other beliefs, then perhaps the rest of us shouldn't be so tolerant of the intolerant believers. Any religion that threatens to supress all criticism and differing opinions is one small step away from totalitarianism.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds are quite free to disagree.

Getting personal

2006-01-27T21:31:00.000-05:00

Here's a fundamental difference between Democratic politics and Republican politics. When the Democrats disagree with the Republicans on an issue, they criticize the issue. When the Republicans disagree with the Democrats on an issue, they criticize the Democrats. With the Republicans, politics is personal.

Some examples.

Senator John Kerry announces that he's in favor of filibustering Sam Alito's Supreme Court nomination. He criticizes Alito's opinions on key issues, and argues (convincingly, IMHO) that Alito's future decisions are likely to be harmful to a variety of civil rights. Do the Republicans counter Kerry's point-by-point critique of Alito's views with a similar point-by-point policy rebuttal? Of course not. Instead, they start firing away at Senator Kerry, on a deeply personal basis. Kerry's deluded, Kerry's out of touch, Kerry's too French. They don't criticize his views; instead, they demonize him, personally.

Decorated and universally respected Congressman John Murtha comes out against the Iraq war. He criticizes the Bush administration's management of the war, treatment of U.S. soldiers, and lack of a clear exit strategy. Do the Republicans counter Murtha's point-by-point critique of the Bush administration's performance with a similar point-by-point policy rebuttal? Of course not. Instead, they start firing away at Congressman Murtha, on a deeply personal basis. Murtha's out of touch, Murtha's a soldier hater, Murtha's a traitor. They don't criticize his views, they demonize him, personally.

Former VP Al Gore speaks out against the Bushies, and the right wing shouting class scream that Gore is having a "meltdown." Harry Belafonte speaks out against the Bushies, and he too is said to be having a "meltdown." Patriots and critics alike are called treasonous when they raise their voices in protest. Never are their points addressed; the only response is to slander the messenger, without ever responding to the message.

And so it goes. Anyone who criticizes the Bush administration or its policies is slandered as a looney or a traitor, called out of touch or anti-American or something worse. Reasoned criticism is countered by vicious personal attacks. And the name-calling isn't limited to Democrats; even rogue Republicans who don't toe the party line (such as Senator John McCain) quickly find themselves the victims of the right-wing smear machine. It's despicable.

This is what politics has come to in America. Or, at least, this is what Republican politics has come to, and what the so-called liberal mainstream media tacitly endorses. Patriots like Kerry and Murtha are "Swift-boated," their patriotism questioned and their honor despoiled. They aren't allowed the courtesy of having their views heard and responded to; the only response is a vicious smear campaign.

This is, for no other reason, why the Republican ruling class must be driven from power. Political discourse must be more than nasty name-calling. Governing must be more than the crushing of one's enemies. Issues should be addressed, respectfully and thoughtfully; criticism should be answered, professionally and dispassionately. There is no place in our political and government life for schoolyard bullying; these sorts of personal attacks should be reserved for the truly despicable among us -- perhaps, indeed, for the right-wing thugs masquerading as public servants in the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Absolute power

2006-01-09T15:39:00.000-05:00

The current uproar over the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of American citizens isn't about the infringement of civil liberties -- at least, not wholly. It is disturbing that our government is spying on us with little or no justification, but the real issue concerns how this has been done. It's all about Presidential power, and Bush's flaunting of the law and the Constitution.

Here's the thing. Under current law, the administration can spy on anyone it wants, as long as it receives a warrant from the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. As a semi-Libertarian and general advocate of civil liberties, this bothers me, but it's the law. All the administration has to do is apply for a warrant, and 99 times out of 100 they get it. They can even apply for the warrant post-action, which means they can wiretap first and ask permission later. And it's all legal.

But this carte blanche approach to the issue wasn't good enough for the Bushies. No, they wanted to eavesdrop without asking permission of anyone -- even if they were pretty much guaranteed approval if they asked. The Bushies, in performing their post-9/11 wiretaps, didn't seek the required warrants from the FISA court. They broke the law.

That's the deal. It's not what they did; it's that they broke the law to do it. And, for a President, breaking the law is an impeachable offense.

It's pretty cut and dried, at least to me and most knowledgeable observers. The Bushies see it different, of course. Bush and his legal advisors claim that Congress' 2001 joint resolution authorizing the use military force against al Queda gave the President broad powers to combat the enemy, including the ability to conduct covert, warrantless surveillance. Further, they point to the directive in the Constitution that states "the president shall be commander-in-chief," which they say gives Bush virtually unlimited authority on issues related to national security. And, in our supposed post-9/11 world, virtually everything has something to do with national security.

In essence, Bush claims that his responsibility as a wartime commander-in chief gives him implicit (if not explicit) authority to do whatever he wants to do, with no oversight and no consequences. Laws don't matter; to Bush and his staff, Presidential authority takes precedence over any and all laws. This is the very definition of the Imperial Presidency, the President as Monarch and Supreme Ruler. The loyal opposition likes to refer to Bush as King George, and they're not far off the mark.

Then there's the whole conceit of Bush as a "wartime" President. Yes, our troops are at war in Iraq, but that's not the war the administration is talking about. The Bush administration and a malleable media have done their best to convince the country that we're "at war" with terrorists, or Islamic jihadists, or somebody, it's not clear who. Forget the fact that the average American feels no effects of this so-called war, nor has made any sacrifices in that regard; by pretending we're in this amorphous war, the Bushies can justify practically any action as a necessary consequence of fighting the war. And, to further benefit the powermongers in the administration, this "war" against an invisible enemy is so amorphous that it need never end. We'll be at war as long as the administration needs, and to whatever extent best benefits them. It's a sham, and one in which the media are willing conspirators.

The consolidation of Presidential power, of course, is actually counter to the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Bush and his "original intent" followers would do well to remember the framers' deep distrust of excessive executive power, and the checks and balances they built into the Constitution. The original intent of the framers, of course, was to rebel against the oppressive power of a king. That's why they devised the separation of powers inherent in our tripartite government, and severely limited the powers of the executive branch. The President may have executive status, but only Congress can declare war. And the legislative branch exists not just to interpret laws, but also to check the power of the other two branches -- including and most especially the executive.

While this consolidation of Presidential power is claimed as a necessary precaution during wartime, the roots of the new Imperial Presidency pre-date the war in Iraq, and the 9/11 attacks. From the first days of the Bush administration, Vice President Cheney was doing everything in his power to rebuild an all-powerful executive branch. It's really a response to the restrictions on Presidential power enacted in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Cheney was there for Nixon's last days, then served as President Ford's chief of staff, where he chaffed at the new legislative limits placed on the executive branch. Now Cheney and his staff are trying to undo thirty years of governmental reform, and return the country to the excesses that marked and marred the Nixon Presidency. In Cheney's mind, the Presidency must have absolute power, with no possible oversight from the legislative and judicial branches of government. Cheney wants the President to be King, the Constitution be damned.

We are at a turning point in our democracy. If Bush is allowed to continue his consolidation of power, that power will become unlimited, and the American experiment will fail. Bush and Cheney and their dreams of an omnipotent Imperial Presidency must be stopped, and Bush must be brought to account for his flaunting of the law and the Constitution. Impeachment is what's called for, and then a return to the true tripartite government that our founders intended. Anything less will ensure that American democracy will be supplanted by a royal dictatorship -- and this cannot be allowed.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Thanks, Sony

2006-01-04T12:48:00.000-05:00

There are many things I like about Sony the corporation, and many things I dislike. In particular, I like their electronics products, and I dislike their greedy, customer-hating music label. (At least the rat bastards at Sony's music division were forced to withdraw their ill-considered copy protection scheme, and are now in the process of settling the resulting class-action lawsuit.) But Sony's service, however, leaves something to be desired.

As I said, I like Sony's electronics products. For many years I had a series of Sony A/V receivers, which I only recently moved beyond when I purchased a set of higher-end B&K separates. I like Sony's TVs, so much so that my home theater system is centered around a Sony rear projection set. I even like Sony's computers, as witnessed by my year-old water-cooled Sony desktop unit.

In fact, I like Sony's computers so much that when it recently came time to choose a new laptop PC, I chose a Sony. I had the choice narrowed down to a Sony FS-790 series or a similar Toshiba, but I really liked the feel of Sony's keyboard (important for a writer) and the look of Sony's LCD screen. So I went with the Sony.

And that's where the fun began.

I decided to place my order from Sony's website; none of their stock models was spec'd precisely the way I wanted, and Sony offered some customization from their site. I checked all the right check boxes and made all the proper selections, so far so good, and clicked the "buy" button to finalize the order. A few seconds later I received a confirmation email, which unfortunately told me that the computer I just ordered was not available for immediate shipment. Not sure what that meant, I look up the status on Sony's website and found out that one or more components of the computer were out of stock. I wanted the computer by Christmas (this was about two weeks before), so this wasn't good. It was time to call customer support.

The good news is, Sony's customer support is in the U.S., not in India as it is with many electronics companies. I talked to a nice American gentleman (in California, I believe), who looked up my order and confirmed what I already knew, which was that some part of the PC was out of stock, and he had no idea when it would ship. He certainly couldn't guarantee shipment by Christmas. So I told him I'd have to cancel my order and buy something by another manufacturer.

At this point the polite young gentleman kindly cancelled my order, but then made an interesting suggestion. Sometimes, he said, customers place a custom order through the website but then cancel the order before the unit ships. This leaves Sony with a brand-new custom-built PC in inventory, and maybe they had one of these sitting around that might come close to the PC I originally spec'd out on the website. He offered to transfer me to a salesperson, and I took him up on the offer.

The salesperson I was transferred to was every bit as helpful as the first gentleman. He did some searching of their in-stock inventory, and found a pre-built computer in their warehouse that exactly matched the specs of the unit that I originally ordered. It was just sitting there, having been cancelled by another customer after it had been built. He could ship it to me immediately, and at a $400 savings, to boot. Good deal.

So, a few days later, I received my brand-new Sony laptop, and I was happy. But only for awhile.

My first disappointment had to do with ordering accessories. I needed a spare AC power pack and a bigger battery. The original salesman had told me to call him after I received the PC, and I would get a 20% discount on any accessories I ordered. He even gave me his name and extension. But when I called the number, I got voice mail, and after leaving my number, he never returned my call.

Okay, so I just wouldn't order from that salesman. I could still order from the website and receive a 20% discount, after receiving an electronic discount coupon after registering my computer online. I registered the PC, but never received the coupon via email as promised. I needed the accessories, unfortunately, so I bit the bullet and ordered at full price. A happy camper I wasn't.

Then, just a few days ago, I got an email from Sony telling me that my new computer was now in stock and that it was being shipped to me. Having received my new computer several weeks earlier, this intrigued me. So I looked up the order on Sony's website, and discovered that they were talking about the original computer I ordered online, which had been cancelled. In fact, Sony's order status for the computer said "Cancelled." However, the cancelled order was still being shipped. Grrrr.

I called up Sony's customer support and inquired about the situation. Yes, the only somewhat helpful lady on the phone said, that order had been cancelled. And yes, she continued, it had been shipped to me the previous day. How, I inquired, had a cancelled order been shipped? A glitch in the system, she replied. Indeed, I responded. And had my credit card been charged for this computer I had cancelled? Of course, the nice lady said. But she would be glad to issue me a return slip, and Sony would pay to ship the computer back. After they received the returned computer, then my charge card would be credited for the full amount. So I have a $2,000 charge on my card until you receive the computer back, I said, which could be two weeks or more? Yes, she said. But we're paying for the return shipping, she added. As well you should, I said. I don't consider that a gift, but a given, I added. She didn't comment further.

So sometime today or tomorrow, computer number two (or is computer number one?) will arrive at my doorstep. I will then print out the return shipping label, lug the thing to my nearest FedEx location, and ship it back to Sony. Sometime in the next few weeks, if all goes well, that $2,000 charge will be taken off my credit card. And Sony might, depending on my mood, lose me as a future customer.

I do wonder how a company that sells electronics products at very slim margins can afford to build and ship PCs by mistake, as they did with me. After all, my experience can't be unique; it takes a bit more than a "glitch in the system" to create this kind of error. It seems to me that Sony needs to examine their systems to find out how this sort of thing can happen, and how often it happens, and then make the necessary changes to ensure that it doesn't happen again. I certainly couldn't stay in business if I made a lot of $2,000 errors. Sony needs to fix their broken system.

Still, I like my new laptop. I'm using it right now, to type these words. The keys feel good under my fingers, and the words look good onscreen. I just don't need two PCs to get the job done.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

The War on Christmas

2005-12-20T16:06:00.000-05:00

Now this is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time, anything having to do with the Bush administration excepted, of course. Various right-wingnuts, led by Fox news screamers Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson, are claiming that liberals are waging a so-called war on Christmas. Their primary evidence seems to be the fact that some retailers are wishing their customers "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas," and holding "holiday sales" instead of "Christmas sales." Disturbingly, many middle-class religious folks (like the elder members of my own family) are buying into this nonsense. And nonsense it is.

There is no "war" on Christmas. No organization or group that anyone knows of is openly or covertly trying to eliminate Christmas as a national holiday or cultural event. None. Not the accursed ACLU, nor the United Nations, nor the Pagan Organization of Witchcraft Worshippers (POWW). Nobody.

The fact that some retailers choose to have their employees say "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" is simply a matter of inclusion. In case some Christians may have forgotten, there are several other major holidays that fall in the same time frame as Christmas -- Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and New Year's Day, chief among them. Saying "happy holidays" is not only shorter than naming each holiday individually, it also has the benefit of being inclusive rather than exclusive. Nobody's trying to make saying "merry Christmas" illegal; it's just simple politeness to acknowledge everyone's religion instead of singling out one for special treatment.

I've always sent out Christmas cards that don't say "merry Christmas." I have several Jewish friends (and probably a few agnostic ones, as well), so wishing my friends "happy holidays" or "peace on earth" or something similar is a more sensitive way to express holiday greetings. I'm sure my Jewish friends wouldn't object to being wished "merry Christmas," but why deliberately mix up the religious messages? By sending out "peace on earth" cards, I'm not fighting any battles against Christmas or Christians or Christianity; I'm simply trying to be sensitive to my friends' beliefs.

The so-called Christians who think that they're being warred against obviously feel no similar sensitivity. It's a Christian nation, say they, thus we should embrace Christianity at the expense of all those annoying minority religions. This ignores the fact that this country was founded on the concept of freedom from an intolerant religious majority; the irony is quite obviously lost on today's holier-than-thou religious majority.

And the fact that Christianity is the majority religion shouldn't be ignored. That's why Christmas is such a big thing, no matter how much these supposedly put upon Christians may protest. Whether retailers call their December sales events Christmas sales or holiday sales is irrelevant; there aren't a lot of Hanukkah or Kwanzaa gifts on display. The holiday sales are all about Christmas; you can't turn a page in the newspaper or go five minutes on radio or TV without being subjected to Christmas-this and Christmas-that. Just because a relative handful of retail employees are saying "happy holidays" doesn't negate the fact that the main holiday they're talking about is Christmas.

If these paranoid Christians think that they're somehow an oppressed minority, they need to take another look at things. Try observing the seasonal madness from the perspective of a Jew or a Muslim (or, God forbid, an atheist) and tell me again how society is ignoring Christmas. It's just not happening. December and November (and, increasingly, October and September) is the Christmas season; it's all-son-of-God, all-the-time, Christmas trees and carols and decorations 24/7 for almost a quarter of the year. Christmas is not in any danger of being eliminated. If there is a war going on, Christmas has the upper hand.

Now, if the disturbed Christians want a real fight, they should consider the war between the religious spirit of Christmas and its commercialism. That's a legitimate discussion to have -- and one war that the spirit of Christmas may be losing. Hell, if I were concerned about the real spirit of Christmas, I'd want fewer Christmas sales, all of which represent the hijacking of baby Jesus by commercial interests. If you want the purity of Christmas preserved, you should be arguing in favor of "happy holidays" so that "merry Christmas" doesn't get further corrupted.

But that's too nuanced an argument. It's much easier for the yellow journalists to cry that Christmas is endangered by the evil liberal agenda, whatever that is, and inflame their gullible followers to mindless action. Sure, they can pick out a few instances where political correctness has triumphed to an illogical extreme (and I'm no fan of political correctness), but random anecdotal evidence aside, the big picture tells us that Christmas is not under attack in any way, shape, or form. The Christian majority is in no danger of being subjected to the whims of the non-Christian minority. In this country, at this time, Jesus rules. And recognizing that other religions exist (and have their own important holidays) does not in any way diminish the importance of Christmas in our society.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

The last refuge of bigotry

2005-12-15T10:13:00.000-05:00

The Indianapolis City-County Council is planning to vote on a gay rights ordinance next week. The ordinance would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it's proving to be perhaps the most controversial issue faced by the Council over the past few years.

That's right, the City-County Council is being inundated by phone calls, letters, and email from Hoosiers opposed to the ordinance. These are people who are in favor of discriminating against gays. Yay, discrimination!

(Which begs the issue -- who taught these Neanderthals how to use computers and email?)

Over the past century we've successfully fought to abolish discrimination against most minorities, including blacks and women. While pockets of racism and sexism still exist, it's now basically accepted in our society that it's not okay to discriminate based on race or sex. Discrimination is bad -- except when it comes to homos. Then it's okay to screw the queers, so to speak.

I'm not gay, nor am I black or a woman, but I'm still offended by any type of discrimination. It's the 21st century here; haven't we gotten past all this? All the City-County Council wants to do is make it illegal for a business not to hire someone because he or she is homosexual. What's the harm in that? It doesn't want to force people to become gay, as if that were possible. What's wrong with a little tolerance?

It's the virulence of the reaction that shocks me, particularly among so-called Christians and those espousing "family values." Family values, my ass. These ignorant bigots are afraid of anyone and anything that is different from them, and want to remake civilized society in their narrowminded image. This is not progress. It is a path away from enlightenment.

I try to be tolerant about most things, as we all should, but I'm becoming increasingly intolerant of intolerance. These hateful, deceitful social conservatives need to be defeated. They're afraid that society is passing them by, and they're right. They want to return society to the dark ages, and society doesn't want to go there.

As intelligent creatures, we should be better than that. We should accept people for what they are, no matter what their color, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. Legalizing discrimination against gays is just one step away from re-embracing prejudice against blacks, women, and Jews. We can't allow this vocal minority to gain control over what I believe is an increasingly tolerant majority.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to talk about gay rights or women's rights or African-American rights. But in this less-than-ideal world, we still have to deal with hate and prejudice. Let's not let ignorance define our society. We should ban all forms of discrimination, and work towards wiping out hate and prejudice in all forms. Yeah, I'm for passing the anti-discrimination ordinance -- and for standing up to the small-minded bigots who oppose it.

And that's not just my opinion; no reasonable mind would disagree.

Top five Christmas albums

2005-12-09T09:27:00.000-05:00

And now, just in time for the holiday season, is a list of my top five personal favorite Christmas albums. So, without further ado...

A Christmas Gift for You from Phil Spector

Not just my favorite Christmas album, but also one of my favorite albums of all time -- always in my top five, and this time of year my number-one. This album features all of Spector's early Wall of Sound artists performing Christmas favorites: Darlene Love, the Ronettes, the Crystals, and Bob B. Soxx and the Blue Jeans. What makes this album so great is that it captures these performers and the stellar team of L.A. studio musicians who backed them at the very peak of the powers. It's sheer joy to listen to Hal Blaine, Carol Kaye, Steve Douglas, and all the rest of the Wrecking Crew barrel their way masterfully through these Christmas classics. And the one original tune of the bunch, Jeff Barry and Ellie Greenwich's "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)," has become a classic; Darlene Love and the crew give it perhaps the best performance on the album. I listen to this album all year long, and it should be a must-have for everyone over the holidays.

Vince Guaraldi Trio: A Charlie Brown Christmas

A real sentimental favorite, but justified. I can't believe that this year is the 40th anniversary of A Charlie Brown Christmas -- I remember watching it as a kid, just as if it were yesterday. (I was seven at the time.) A great special, based on a great comic strip, with equally great music. The choice of Vince Guaraldi's cool jazz stylings was inspired; dig the hip takes on timeless tunes like "O Tannenbaum" and the terrific original tunes "Christmas Time is Here" and (of course) "Linus and Lucy." This is what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

John Denver and the Muppets: A Christmas Together

Another soundtrack from a great television Christmas special, this one from the 1970s. The Muppet Christmas special doesn't get repeated every year like the Charlie Brown one, but it should. There's fun stuff here ("Little Saint Nick" by Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem) as well as touching performances (Kermit the Frog singing "The Christmas Wish," and Rowlf the Dog's "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas") -- and John Denver sings some, too. If you can, search out eBay for the original 13-song Windstar release, instead of the current 10-song Laserlight re-release. For some reason, rights were lost to three of the tunes from the original -- "Little Saint Nick," "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," and "When the River Meets the Sea" -- which really removes the heart from this excellent little collection.

The Roches: We Three Kings

I love the Roches, ever since I caught them on their first performance on Saturday Night Live back in the late '70s. In fact, my favorite all-time concert was a performance by the Roches at a small club in Bloomington, Indiana, in the mid-'80s. How can you not like their warm but quirky harmonies, and off-kilter sense of humor? Okay, so Maggie, Terre, and Suzzy are an acquired taste -- but if you've acquired it, you'll really appreciate their Christmas album. There's beautiful singing here, and no small amount of quirky humor. (My favorite -- the Brooklynesque accents and attitudes on "Frosty the Snowman.") Yeah, it's a "non-traditional" Christmas album, but sometimes the non-traditional becomes a tradition.

Mel Torme: Christmas Songs

What better way to end my Top Five list than with my favorite male singer of all time, the Velvet Fog, performing smooth and classy versions of traditional Christmas carols. The standout here, as you might suspect, is Mel's very own "The Christmas Song" -- although there are other standouts, including Mel's version of "Christmas Time is Here" from A Charlie Brown Christmas. (Yeah, Charlie Brown again.) Put this one on the old turntable (or CD player) and sit in front of an open fire for a very relaxing holiday evening.

And five honorable mentions...
The top four albums on this list are always there, but on any given day the Mel Torme CD can be replaced with Ella Fitzgerald's Ella Wishes You a Swinging Christmas (almost as good as Mel's album), Mitch Miller's Holiday Sing Along with Mitch (an old family favorite), Nat King Cole's The Christmas Song, Bing Crosby's White Christmas, or Patty Loveless' Bluegrass & White Snow: A Mountain Christmas (a surprisingly effective traditional country approach). In any case, now is the time of year to check out all these great albums -- and load up the CD changer with the sounds of the holidays!

Smokin'

2005-12-04T14:33:00.000-05:00

My little community of Carmel, Indiana, just passed a no-smoking ordinance, very similar to the one recently passed in the big city of Indianapolis, just next door. This is a good thing, although the ordinance itself is a little on the weenie side. (It still allows smoking in bars and taverns that don't serve patrons under 18 -- a major lapse, IMHO.)

It's about time Indiana got on board the no-smoking bandwagon. I love traveling to California and Minnesota, both of which are big no-smoking states. I hate coming back home to Indiana, which is pretty much a mandatory smoking state. (If you got 'em, smoke 'em -- and if you don't got 'em, go buy some.) I get off the plane, pick up my luggage, and walk outside to the shuttle bus area where a dozen people are lighting up. The folks around here just can't put enough nicotine and tar into their lungs. Look at the statistics, and you find that Indiana is one of the unhealthiest states in the nation -- we smoke, we eat too much, and we exercise too little. Hoosiers are just a bunch of fat, uneducated, smoke-spewing pigs. That's the generalization, at least.

When I visit CA and MN, I can go into any restaurant or bar and not be overcome with smoke fumes. I can spend a nice evening eating and drinking, and not come home with my clothes reeking of stale tobacco. Not so in IN; the dense clouds of smoke in most entertainment establishments keeps me away. I'd like to think I'd go out more if I didn't have to deal with effects of second-hand smoke. (But then again, I'm middle-aged now, and I don't get out as much as I used to for lots of other reasons.)

So banning smoking from most public places pleases me. It doesn't go far enough, though. What the new ordinance does is remove the smoking section from my local Applebees, but doesn't do a thing for the bar down the block. Oh well; baby steps, and all that.

I used to have a bit of trouble reconciling my semi-libertarian leanings with my desire to ban smoking in public places. After all, I'm generally for less government regulation of personal behavior. I don't want the government telling me what I can or cannot do to my own body; I believe that the government (or church or whoever) has no business poking their nose into my bedroom; and I think that most drug laws are arcane and unwarranted. (Yeah, I'm for more drug legalization -- although, thanks, all you crystal meth users, for forcing my friendly pharmacist to display my favorite cold medicines behind the counter. I really appreciate the inconvenience.) So how do I get off arguing for more governmental control over voluntary behavior?

It's simple, really. The best of laws exist to protect us not from ourselves, but from others. What you do to your own body (in private, anyway) is no business of mine. But when what you do infringes on my rights, then regulation is necessary. So smoking in the privacy of your own home, fine. Smoking in public, where you force me to breathe your noxious fumes, not so much. No one is telling anyone that they can't smoke; the no-smoking ordinance simply says you can't smoke in places where it infringes on others' right to breathe.

One can, of course, take this sort of thinking to an illogical extreme. Should we outlaw farting in public, or bad breath? Arguments could be made for both, but now we're getting silly. As far as I know, farts aren't life-threatening. (Well, most farts aren't...) But cigarette smoke is. That's where you draw the line.

What I really can't understand is why anyone my age or younger takes up smoking in the first place. Since the mid-1960s, at least, the dangers of smoking have been well-publicized. Older generations might not have known the dangers, but my generation certainly does -- or should. So why take up what is at best a filthy habit, and at worst a life-threatening one?

I don't know the answer to that. It's easy to think that's its a social thing, with more low-income smokers than high-income ones. But I know more than a few intelligent, educated professionals who smoke, and there's no good reason for it. If we really wanted to get serious about healthcare in this country, we'd actually have a debate about outlawing cigarettes altogether. Less-deadly substances are illegal, after all.

But I'm for less government regulation, not more, and making cigarettes illegal rubs me the wrong way. I don't think people should smoke them, but I'm not about to argue for abolishing them. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, after all; there's no reason to think it would work for tobacco, either. So let's keep the filthy things legal, but limit their use in public places. We'll all be better for it.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Good guys and bad guys

2005-11-28T10:28:00.000-05:00

Like most folks, my concept of right and wrong was established at an early age. While I know the world isn't black and white, I still believe that it's easy to tell between right and wrong -- to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

My concept of how the good guys act was influenced by comic books and television. In comic books, there were Superman and Batman, defending the little guys from the evildoers. On television, it was Superman again (the George Reeves version) and the Lone Ranger, again doing their best to look out for the little guy. What I learned from these characters was that good guys never hit (or shot, in the case of the Lone Ranger) first. They waited for the bad guys to make their move, then they reacted. And they never killed, only wounded. (The Lone Ranger shot a lot of bad guys in the hand.) The good guys didn't think much of big business or big government, they were there to protect the rights of the individual. They didn't beat up innocent people or torture them or behave in any way less than Boy Scoutish. Heck, they didn't even swear.

My concept of how the bad guys act was influenced by the times, which in my case was the Cold War. The bad guys were the Communists, and they did nasty things. The bad-guy Communists banned books and tried to control the activities and thoughts of their citizens. Their secret police spied on their citizens, and arrested them in the dead of night with no cause or warrant. The bad guys tortured people, and sent them to waste away in frozen gulags. The bad guys invaded other countries with no provocation, grinding their freedom under the boot heel of oppression.

In the world I grew up in, it was clear who the good guys and the bad guys were. The good guys were for openness and freedom , and the bad guys were for secrecy and oppression. It was the good guys' job to stop the bad guys wherever they could, but in the good guy fashion; the good guys never used the methods of the bad guys.

To my chagrin, the world today is different. Americans are supposed to be good guys, but we're acting just like bad guys. That doesn't make the real bad guys any less bad, but it does make us that much less good.

In today's world, America invades other countries without any provocation. Even if you believed all the pre-war hype about WMD (and not everyone did), there was still little or no reason to believe that Iraq was on the verge of attacking the U.S. -- or any other country, for that matter. America invaded a country that posed no immediate danger to us. Good guys don't shoot first, but that's just what we did in Iraq.

In today's world, American police can arrest anyone they want, merely by calling them a terrorist. There is no due process. After 9/11, the government locked up hundreds of innocent citizens, deprived them of legal council, and resisted all attempts to either free them or formally charge them. I'm not talking about the Guantanamo detainees; I'm talking about honest, hardworking American citizens, most of Middle Eastern descent, who were swept up in the net of fear. Good guys don't have secret police who arrest people in the middle of the night, but that's exactly what the Bush administration did.

In today's world, American troops can take prisoners in a so-called war, spirit them away to camps in other countries, and detain them indefinitely. These prisoners, held in Guantanamo and in secret camps across the globe, are held in a kind of legal limbo. They're denied prisoner of war status, yet not charged with any domestic crime. They have no hope of release, only a dismal future in these American-run gulags. Good guys don't condemn prisoners to gulags, but that's what the American government continues to do.

In today's world, American troops and agents torture and kill their prisoners. There are no rules, except for those the administration argues to ignore. The Geneva conventions are not followed; military personnel are implicitly if not explicitly ordered to use torture as an interrogation device. Good guys don't torture and kill, but that's what we as Americans are allowing to happen in Iraq and elsewhere.

In today's world, Americans are no longer the good guys. It wasn't 9/11, but rather the Bush administration that turned the world on its head and turned Americans -- all Americans -- into bad guys. We should know right from wrong, and today we are in the wrong. For this, we have George Bush and his cadre of hardliners to thank.

Superman and the Lone Ranger would be ashamed; indeed, they would find us to be the bad guys that need protecting against. How much longer will basically decent Americans continue to support this wrongful behavior? How much longer before the architects of our moral downfall are impeached and tried as the criminals that they are?

I still believe in right and wrong, in good guys and bad guys. And I'm tired of being one of the bad guys.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Born to Run

2005-11-21T11:05:00.000-05:00

It's hard to believe that it was thirty years ago that Bruce Springsteen released his classic Born to Run album. Not only doesn't it feel like it's been thirty years, the album doesn't sound dated at all. But that's the mark of a classic; it doesn't get older, it just gets better.

To mark the thirtieth anniversary of the album, Sony (the current owners of Columbia, the original label) has re-released the album as part of a three-disc set. The album itself is one of the discs, a remastered CD that sounds noticeably but not significantly better than the original pressing. (It's not the most impressive remaster I've ever encountered, to be honest, but it still sounds damned good.) The other two discs are DVDs, one a particularly interesting documentary of the making of the album, the other a rare, long-thought-lost Springsteen concert from October 1975.

As good as the CD is, and as interesting as the documentary is, the real gem is the concert disc; it captures the band in their first non-U.S. appearance (at Hammersmith Odeon, in London), in what is truly a legendary performance. It's here where the E Street Band really started to gel, with Miami Steve, Max Weinberg, and Roy Bittan all just recently having joined the band. Springsteen and company felt like they had something to prove to the jaded British critics (and to live up to some of the pre-concert hype), and they did. The band starts off a little tentative, but soon enough catches fire and rips the roof off the joint. When people say a performance is legendary, this is what they mean, and we're fortunate that it was captured in its entirety. I've seen many other Springsteen concerts over the years, but this one is by far the most dynamic and moving. My previous favorite concert movie was The Band's The Last Waltz, but this one goes immediately to the front of the pack.

I'm embarrassed to say that in August of 1975, when Born to Run was first released, I was totally unaware of the album and the artist, in spite of the dual newsweekly covers. I didn't get turned on to Springsteen until the 1978 release of Darkness on the Edge of Town, and then worked backwards through the catalog. (That's right, I discovered Elvis Costello before I discovered Springsteen -- a definite chronological error.) I don't know how I avoided Born to Run back in 1975, but it wasn't just me; none of my musically-inclined friends noticed it, either. Maybe I was too much of a jazz and jazz-rock snob at the time, I don't know. But it passed right by me, and I was the less for it.

In August of 1975 I was getting ready to start my senior year in high school. I had just broken up with my girlfriend of the past year (or, more accurately, she had just broken up with me), and I was more than eager to get through my final year and get on to college. My senior year was not my best year; I was bored and missed my older friends who'd graduated the year before. Yeah, I owned the joint, but I didn't care about it anymore. The place had changed, and it just wasn't as much fun. I wanted to get out and move on.

I could have done with a little Springsteen at that point in time. I definitely would have identified with "Thunder Road" and "Born to Run" just as much, if not more so, than I did three years later. Springsteen painted such vivid pictures of loss and longing, it tore your heart out. His music on Born to Run was operatic, fusing the best of all that rock and roll had offered up to that point. When I listen to "Thunder Road" today, I still want to grab my Mary with her waving dress and race as fast as I can out of this town full of losers. "Jungleland" still stuns me with its stark tale of dime-store hope and despair -- "The poets down here don't write nothing at all, they just stand back and let it all be." Born to Run was Dylan fused with Phil Spector, with a little Roy Orbison thrown into the mix, like nothing before and nothing since.

And, as great as the album was, Springsteen's live performances were even better. Oh, what I'd give to go back and time and catch the E Street Band on that Born to Run tour. In fact, if I had a time machine, I wouldn't use it for the normal stuff, to go back and look at the dinosaurs, or see what Jesus was really like, or to try and stop JFK's assassination. No, I'd use my time machine to let me capture the legendary performances of my lifetime, and before. I'd go back to 1975 to see Springsteen and the E Street Band, and to 1964 to see the Beatles' first American tour, and to 1963 to hear Dylan at Newport, and to 1959 to catch Miles Davis at the Blue Note, and to 1956 to see a young Julie Andrews come into her own in My Fair Lady, and back even further to see Fred Astaire dancing on Broadway, and on and on and on. Some of these performances are captured on film and video, some on vinyl and CD, but it's not the same as being there. That's what I'd use my time machine for, to catch the magic.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

There was much rejoicing

2005-11-11T18:02:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post reports today that Sony has backed off from its CD copy protection scheme -- you know, the one that installed malware on your PC, wouldn't let you copy the CD to an iPod, and limited CD-to-PC rip quality to a measly 128 Kbps. Seems Sony didn't like the bad press. Awww, I feel for them. Those rat bastards.

It's time that honest consumers stood up for their rights against these greedy fat cat record labels. The labels obviously don't care about their customers or their clients (the recording artists), they only care about the bottom line -- and only then in the short term. So maybe they cut back a teensy-weensy little bit on copying with this DRM scheme (and that's quite arguable), while in the long run they drive more and more formerly paying customers away. When you combine greed with stupidity, that's what you get.

The record labels blame music downloads and CD copying for all their woes. But study after study has failed to prove that downloads and copying affect CD sales one iota. Here's what's really happening. CDs cost too much (should a 60-minute music CD really be priced higher than a two-hour movie DVD?), and the music they're putting out sucks. It also doesn't help that the Clear Channels of the world so rule the radio waves that (1) there's very little opportunity for potential CD buyers to hear new music and (2) the market is so scattered among subgenres that there's little or no chance for a true mass market hit anymore.

So the labels are crying the blues over declining sales, and trying to make up for it by suing their customers, infecting their PCs with worms, and restricting the use of the products they sell. Yeah, that's smart business. I do not feel their pain.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Fearless predictions

2005-11-10T14:33:00.000-05:00

I haven't commented much on political events since Harriet Miers' withdrawal, Judge Alito's nomination, and Scooter Libby's indictment. I've had enough fun just sitting back and watching the Bush administration implode.

Here's the thing -- power corrupts. And the Bushies had a lot of power, more than any administration in recent history. Is it any surprise, then, that the Bush administration is being found out as the most corrupt since Warren G. Harding? The more power these guys got, the more corrupt they became -- and the more blatantly they tried to protect that power. The whole Plame case is all about punishing their enemies, and will (as I predicted long ago) result in their eventual downfall.

That said, here are my predictions for how various events play out.

On the Alito nomination, I don't have a clue. (How's that for a prediction?) He's quite obviously a corporate lackey (much like Roberts before him) and also a bit of a conservative wingnut. But he's also an intelligent and experienced jurist with a keen legal mind, unlike the previous nominee for the post. How the Senate breaks on him depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which is how much control the White House still has over the Republican legislators. Okay, I'll go out on a limb and say it ends up 52-48 against, but I'm not very confident of the odds; it could very well go 52-48 for.

On the Plamegate front, I see this getting really interesting, and resulting in a wholesale shakeup in the West Wing. As Scooter's case moves towards open court, we'll find out more about Dick Cheney's role in all this -- that is, we'll discover (or at least have it strongly hinted) that Cheney masterminded the whole thing. It's beyond consideration that Cheney's right-hand man would have done everything he did totally on his own, without the knowledge if not explicit direction of his boss. As the fickle finger of fate starts pointing at the big Dick, I see Cheney resigning as VP, probably sometime late in 2006 or early 2007. For medical reasons, of course. (Nudge, nudge.) Whether Rove leaves or not depends purely on whether Turd Blossom decides to take one for the team and tender his resignation; Bush will never fire him.

Cheney's resignation will free up Bush to appoint his designated successor as the new VP. It won't be McCain or Giuliani; my primary bet is on Romney or Allen, with a side bet on George's brother Jeb. Yeah, Bush could be that dumb. But either Romney or Allen would be a smarter choice, all things said and done.

As to the 2006 elections, I see a Democratic sweep, big enough to regain control of the Senate and maybe big enough to take back the House, as well. When this happens, the floodgates open -- and Bush had better hunker down. We'll finally see aggressive investigations into everything that's happened in the past five years, quite possibly leading to impeachment proceedings.

Bottom line, the good times are over for the Bush boys. The final years of his second term will be rough ones, indeed.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

More on Sony's CD copy protection

2005-11-04T09:40:00.000-05:00

Those rat bastards at Sony have been taking a ton of flack this week for their malware-infected CD copy protection scheme. Seems as if that installer program that prohibits copying their CDs to iPods or ripping to a PC at anything more than 128 Kbps also installs a spyware-type program on your PC. You know, the type of program that hides its existence, is impossible to remove, and can potentially be hijacked by malicious hackers. Gotta love Sony for this likely criminal infringement of their customer's rights. Not only do they not want their customers to actually use their products, they want to invade their customers' privacy and possibly damage their computers, as well. Way to go, Sony rat bastards!

Sony, of course, remains clueless. Their sole response to this controversy was to announce a patch to the malware program to reduce the hacker hijack threat. Boy oh boy, am I happy now. What a bunch of insensitive fucks.

That said, I did stumble upon a way to successfully rip the audio files from Sony's copy protected CDs. What you have to do is insert the CD into your PC without letting the autorun program run, so that you don't install the malware program. (Difficult, but doable.) Then you access the CD as you would any data CD, and use a program called CDex to extract the audio files. CDex can rip files in either MP3 or WAV format (WAV for me, thank you), and it works just fine on the Burt Bacharach CD I recently purchased (and subsequently returned -- post CDex-ing, of course). It's too much work to get the full value out of these CDs, of course, but it's good to know there's a technological solution to this particular issue.

The rat bastards at Sony who thought up this scheme should be fired. And the consuming public should boycott Sony's CDs until this problem is resolved. This situation demands nothing less than a full recall of the suspect products, replacing them in the marketplace with non-copy protected, non-malware infected versions, and fully refunding customers' money or replacing the bad CDs with good ones. An acknowledgment of their stupidity would also be nice, as would an apology.

Oh, and how did Burt's new CD sound? Okay, but definitely not his best work. I was particularly disappointed in the pedestrian arrangements, relying too heavily on drum loops and cheap synthesizers instead of the full orchestra that Burt should be working with. And, of course, Burt is not a great singer, nor is he as talented a lyricist as his former partner, Hal David. Worth a listen, but not worth dealing with Sony's copy protection to hear.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Bad Bacharach: Sony's copy protection strikes again

2005-11-01T17:46:00.000-05:00

I'm a Burt Bacharach fan. More than a fan. A student. I've studied his music extensively, and not only appreciate his compositions but understand them. I consider Bacharach one of the top composers of the 20th century.

This is why I was very much looking forward to Burt's new CD, At This Time, his first batch of all-new compositions in many a year. Unfortunately, the CD I received was encoded with Sony's brand spanking new copy protection scheme, which makes the disc totally unlistenable to my ears. The CD is being returned, and I don't get to hear Burt's new music. To say that I'm pissed off is an understatement.

Let me explain.

I rip all of my CDs to the hard drive on my Media Center PC, and then listen to my music digitally through an extremely high fidelity audio system in my living room. Every other CD in my collection ripped just fine, and I save the files in WMA Lossless format, which has an effective bit rate of 700 Kbps or so -- the same quality as the original files on the CD. But this Sony copy protection scheme messes with all that. First, you can't just rip the CD, you to run the little program on the CD and let it copy the files to the hard drive for you. Then, it copies the files in regular WMA format (not WMA Lossless) at a miserable 128 Kbps. Not acceptable! Maybe that's good enough for use with an iPod, but the sound quality is so poor as to be unlistenable over a quality audio system.

Why should I have to pay full price for a CD that, when played on my expensive Media Center PC-based system, offers significantly inferior sound quality? Why would any consumer put up with this bullshit? Just what are those rat bastards at Sony trying to do, anyway -- totally alienate their customers?

I'm doubly pissed off because I so wanted to listen to this album, and because Burt Bacharach albums (dating back to the legendary Casino Royale soundtrack) are usually a sonic treat -- not just great music, but extremely well-recorded music. I simply can't listen to this music presented in sub-FM quality. I'm not pissed at Burt, but rather at Sony. I vow never to buy another Sony CD again, until they reverse this policy of sonically crippling their new releases. (And I fault Amazon, to some degree, for not noting the copy protection in their item listing.)

So fuck you, Sony rat bastards. Cut the crap and give us consumers all the music we pay for -- with no restrictions!

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

I love Ace Records

2005-10-25T13:53:00.000-05:00

I'm always searching out new labels for old music -- record companies that specialize in hard-to-find or high-quality reissues of classic music. Rhino Records is a long-time fave, of course (latest purchases: the Girl Group Sounds boxed set and a limited-edition rerelease of Melanie's 1976 Photograph album), as is Wounded Bird Records. But my new discovery is Ace Records, a British reissue label. Not that they reissue British records (although they probably do); what I'm getting into are their reissues of classic American soul and girl group recordings.

On the soul front, Ace has a particular fondness for northern soul, in the form of various compilations: The Mirwood Soul Story, Shrine: The Rarest Soul Label (Vols. 1-2), Rare, Collectible and Soulful (Vols. 1-2), Northern Soul's Classiest Rarities, OKeh: A Northern Soul Obsession (Vols. 1-2), and New York Soul Serenade. Ace is also big on southern soul, straight soul, R&B, funk, and related genres, with a fondness for the obscure.

When it comes to the girl group sound, Ace is also big on the obscure. Their compilations move quite swiftly from well-known artists to little-known or "lost" recordings by a variety of one-hit (or no-hit) wonders. But, boy, are these great compilations. If the Rhino Girl Group Sounds box is a great place to start (and probably more than enough for the casual listener), Ace takes the exploration several steps further. I'm not sure that some of the artists included ever got heard outside of their immediate neighborhoods. Where Ace dug this stuff up is beyond me, but I'm glad they did. If you're into girl groups, you have to check out Ace's Where the Girls Are (Vols. 1-6) and Early Girls (Vols. 1-4) compilations, as well as their one-offs Boy Trouble: Garpax Girls, Playin' Hard to Get: West Coast Girls, Kiss 'n' Tell, Queens of King, and Girls with Guitars discs. There's good -- and very rare -- stuff here.

Ace also covers other genres -- folk, blues, doo wop, early rock 'n' roll, you name. Sound quality is generally pretty good, not quite up to Rhino standards, but still. Liner notes are extensive, although with a bit of a British spin. All in all, this is a small label definitely worth checking out. They're doing all of us classic music lovers a huge favor by bringing all this forgotten music to light.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Good reads

2005-10-20T16:34:00.000-05:00

The past few weeks have seen a bevy of new books by some of my favorite authors. Here are some quick comments.

School Days is the latest in Robert B. Parker's Spenser series, and it may be the best Spenser book in fifteen or more years. In this one Spenser's lady friend Susan is away at a convention and Hawk is off doing who knows ahat, so Spenser is on his own for a change. By paring away the supporting characters (who we all know and love, but -- let's face it -- have become a bit of a crutch in recent books), Parker brings Spenser closer to the way he was written in the early books in the series. The plot also echoes earlier books like God Save the Child and Ceremony, in that Spenser's case takes him to a small-town high school -- in this case, to investigate the aftermath of a Columbine-like school shooting. The plot has an actual mystery for a change, and while I miss the Hawk and Susan banter (I could read an entire book of nothing but Spenser, Susan, and Hawk conversing over a gourmet dinner), Spenser is wittier and the action is grittier for not relying on the tired old cliches. Perhaps the best Spenser book since 1987's Pale Kings and Princes.

Cinnamon Kiss is the latest in Walter Mosley's Easy Rawlins series, about a part-time black detective in 1960s Los Angeles. There's nothing extra special or unique about this entry, which doesn't lessen its readability; Mosley does his usual superb job of painting a picture that provides a vivid sense of place and time. And it's a good mystery, to boot, this one taking Easy up to San Francisco for awhile, then back to south central L.A., in a quest to find a missing woman and a briefcase full of valuable bonds. Additional tension is provided by the illness of Easy's adopted daughter, Feather; Easy is under particular pressure to solve the case and collect a handsome reward, in order to afford Feather's necessary and expensive medical treatment. All the familiar characters turn up, including Jackson Blue, Saul Linx, and Easy's homicidal friend Raymond "Mouse" Alexander. As with all of Mosley's books, this one is a very satisfying treat.

War at Home presents us with another part-time black detective, in the form of Kris Nelscott's Smokey Dalton. In her Smokey Dalton novels (this is the fifth book in the series), Nelscott has used the conventions of the genre mystery to detail race relations and the civil rights movement in the 1960s, by tying her plots with key events -- Martin Luther King's assassination, the 1968 Democratic convention, and, in this book, the burgeoning anti-war movement. In this book Smokey, his "son" Jimmy, and street-smart friend Malcom Reyner travel from Chicago to Connecticut and New York City in search of teacher Grace Kirkland's missing son, Daniel. The search brings Smokey into contact with a group of anti-war radicals, in the fashion of the real-life Weathermen, and a plot to bomb various establishment fixtures. What I find amazing is that this convincing and engrossing view of what it meant to be a black man during that turbulent era is written by a young white woman from Oregon. (I must admit, I had very mixed feelings when I discovered, about three books in, that the author was both female and white; I'd just assumed that Kris was a male name and that "he" was a black man, just like Walter Mosley, author of the similar Easy Rawlins books -- although, interestingly, both Nelscott and Mosley got their start writing science fiction, not mystery books.)

The Colorado Kid is Stephen King's first paperback original in what, forever? -- as well as his first true mystery (not horror) novel. It's published as part of the Hard Case Crime imprint, which specializes in hard boiled noir fiction, both reprinting early works from established writers such as Donald Westlake and Lawrence Block and publishing new works from younger authors. King's entry is bound to confuse both his traditional audience and loyal Hard Case Crime readers, as it's more soft boiled than hard. It is a mystery of sorts, told completely as a book-length conversation between the crusty old editor of small-town Maine newspaper, his equally crusty right-hand man, and a young female reporter. Though the book was nothing like what I expected, it was pretty good -- King is a very talented writer, after all. It's also a very quick read, more of a novella than a novel, easily finished in a single setting. In any case, I'm glad to see King try something new, and for him to lend his name to an up-and-coming imprint like Hard Case Crime. It's a quick, cheap read -- definitely worth the money.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

New cell phone

2005-10-19T10:28:00.000-05:00

With all my ranting about public cell phone use, it might surprise you to find out that I just purchased a brand-new cell phone for myself. I never use the damned thing, but I always like to have the latest model. It's a tech geek gadget thing. But the guy at the Cingular store was a little thrown off by someone requesting the bare minimum service plan and the most expensive phone in the store. Ah, contradictions.

The new phone is a black Motorola Razr. It's really thin and tres hip, and does all the geeky stuff you'd want it to do. Not that I'll use it to do all that stuff -- no cockroach-sized Bluetooth headsets for me. I just use it to check my answering machine when I'm out. What a waste of technology. (But it is really cool!)

I switched service providers from Sprint to Cingular, because I hate fucking Sprint. My old phone, a Sanyo model, just plain sucked; I couldn't hear squat with it. (The Razr is noticeable improvement on the sound quality front.) But the back-breaking straw came about a year ago, when I got a promotional mailing from Sprint advertising a new, lower-rate service for infrequent callers like myself. Sprint thought I should switch, I agreed, and tried to do it. Then the fun began.

First, Sprint won't let you manage your service plans over the web. Annoying, yes, but not a deal breaker. So I called customer service, said I wanted to switch plans, and entered into thirty minutes of hell. The customer service rep led me down the long, convoluted path to changing plans (which should have been a simple checkbox on a web page), at the end of which was this interesting and unexpected revelation: To change plans, I had to sign up for another two-year contract. That's right, I couldn't just switch plans, I had to resubscribe to the new plan. This was unacceptable, to say the least; after all my hassles with Sprint, not to mention the sucky phone, I didn't want to extend anything -- especially when the suggestion to switch plans came from the company itself.

So I told the nice customer service lady to scrap the plan-switching paperwork, and to tell her supervisor that I would be switching companies instead, when my original two-year contract was up. Which it was this week, hence the new phone with a new company. Goodbye Sprint, hello Cingular.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

The Girl Group sound

2005-10-16T17:04:00.000-05:00

I've been in seventh heaven this past week, listening to Rhino's latest boxed set, One Kiss Can Lead to Another: Girl Group Sounds, Lost and Found. I'm a long-time fan of the early-60s Girl Group/Brill Building/Wall of Sound genre (and of Rhino Records, of course), and this boxed set is perhaps the finest representation to-date of the Girl Group part of that equation.

First, a bit about the boxed set. It's a 4-CD set, each CD with 30 songs each, for a total of 120 girl group classics. It comes with the kind of in-depth liner notes, in a separate booklet, that one expects from the folks at Rhino. And it's all wrapped up in what looks to be a 60s-era hatbox, very cute.

The recordings are all first-rate, fully remastered in glorious mono (in most cases). Many of the songs here are available on other collections (such as K-Tel's long out-of-print The Brill Building Sound boxed set), but the sound here is much superior to what I've heard elsewhere. Take, for example, the forgotten gem "My One and Only, Jimmy Boy" by The Girlfriends. This song first got rediscovered on The Brill Building Sound, then later was included on one of Ace Records' Early Girls compilation CDs. In both those instances, the sound was muddy, without a lot of headroom; it sounded as if it had been recorded in a trashcan. Not so on Girl Group Sounds. Here the sound is bright and clear, almost as if it had been recorded last year instead of forty years ago. (It first hit the charts in February of 1964, where it got swept away by the Beatles invasion.) You can hear every footstomping beat, every crack from Hal Blaine's snare drum, and all the glory of Steve Douglas' rockin' sax solo. The sound is so vibrant, so joyous, you just want to get up and dance along.

As I said, most of the songs on the Rhino set have been available in other collections, although you had to look hard for them. Rhino's mid-1980s The Best of the Girl Groups compilations offered some of these tunes, as did K-Tel's late, lamented 1993 The Brill Building Sound box. More recently, U.K. reissue label Ace Records had dug up several of these cuts for their Early Girls and Where the Boys Are compilations, although both the sound and the liner notes are superior in this new Rhino set.

My favorite tunes? There's a bunch. "He's Got the Power," by The Exciters. "You Don't Know," a rare solo singing turn by songwriter Ellie Greenwich. "Please Don't Wake Me," by The Cinderellas. "I Never Dreamed," by The Cookies. "Break-A-Way" by Irma Thomas. The Bacharach-like "Girl Don't Come," by Sandie Shaw. "The One You Can't Have," by The Honeys, written and produced by Brian Wilson in his best better-than-Spector mode. The aforementioned, "My One and Only, Jimmy Boy," by The Cinderellas, a rollicking Wall of Sound-alike by future Bread-winner David Gates. "Dream Baby" by a very young Cher, where producer Sonny Bono shows that he learned something when he used to work for Phil Spector. "I'm Blue (The Gong-Gong Song)" by the Ikettes, recently revived in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill Vol. 1. "Peanut Duck," an irresistibly odd dance number by an anonymous singer billed as Marsha Gee. A somewhat obscure Dusty Springfield number titled "I Can't Wait Till I See My Baby's Face." A rare live version of Patty & The Emblems' "Mixed Up, Shook Up Girl." And too many more to mention.

The Girl Group sound was inspired by the popular female pop singers of the 1950s (Patti Page, Rosemary Clooney, et al), the burgeoning R&B genre (Ruth Brown, Etta James, et al), and various female doo-wop groups. The fire was lit by early rock 'n' roll, and the fuel provided by the era's best producers, songwriters, and studio musicians. Its birthplace was New York, but it quickly migrated to Los Angeles, Detroit, London, and beyond. At its best, the Girl Group sound mixed bits of Brill Building pop, Phil Spector Wall of Sound, sassy Motown soul, and the sound of swingin' London -- although it doesn't fall squarely into any of these camps. After all, Brill Building songwriters also wrote for male teen heartthrobs and manufactured groups like the Archies and the Monkees; the Wall of Sound powered hits by The Righteous Brothers and Ike & Tina Turner; Motown was at least as much Temps and Tops as it was Supremes and Marvelettes; and London pop eventually devolved into schmaltzy Tom Jones and Englebert Humperdinck. So the Girl Group sound was more than the sum of its parts -- it was its own distinct sound, whether fronted by a real group or a solo singer with backups.

To many critics, the post-Elvis, pre-Beatles era was a musical wasteland, but they just weren't listening hard enough. The best of the Girl Groups (and solo singers working with backup groups) transcended the factory-like approach to the music, working with the best songwriters, producers, and studio musicians to create classic tracks that bear their unique imprint. I'm talking about groups like The Shangra-La's, The Chiffons, and The Shirelles, and solo singers like Ronnie Spector (of The Ronettes), Darlene Love (of The Blossoms), Dusty Springfield, Petula Clark, Leslie Gore, and, of course, Diana Ross (and The Supremes). These are great songs, great performances, and great records. I can listen to them all day long -- and often do.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Flying the friendly skies

2005-10-14T14:11:00.000-05:00

Last weekend I flew out to Pasadena for an old friend's wedding. It was not the smoothest trip I've ever been on.

The trip out was fine, Indianapolis to Denver to Burbank. (Burbank was the closest airport to my friend's house in Pasadena; actually a quick and convenient little airport -- to a point, as I'll soon discuss.) The wedding was great, held outdoors in the L.A. Arboretum, near where they used to film parts of the old Fantasy Island TV show. Lots of exotic flowers and peacocks, which can also be exotic -- unless you have dozens of them nesting in your front yard, as my friend does, in which case even exotic animals can become pests. In any case, it was a nice wedding, and I had a nice time.

If I had been smart, I would have flown back home on Sunday. (The wedding was Saturday evening.) But I thought, what the heck, might as well spend another day in sunny Pasadena. So that's what I did, intending to fly back on Monday.

Intending is the operable word. Come Monday morning, I drive to the Burbank airport, do a quick check in, and settle in for the wait before the flight. That's when I found out about the snow. In Denver. Which is where my flight back to Indianapolis connected.

First, my flight was delayed by an hour. No problem, I had two hours between flights in Denver. Then the flight was put on indefinite hold, due to a ground stop in Denver. (You'd think the folks in Denver might have learned how to handle a little snow, but noooooo...) That's when I trekked back to the counter to try and figure out another way home, one that didn't involve Denver.

Now we come to the first of many reasons why I hate United. The lady at the counter said that there was probably a flight from LAX to Indy via Chicago, but that she couldn't make the changes herself. Instead, I had to call the reservations desk. Why the hell couldn't the lady at the United ticket counter in Burbank access the United reservations system? Isn't that what they get paid to do? Don't they have Burbank on line with the rest of the system? Is Burbank that much of a step-child of an airport? Or is United's entire operational process totally fucked up?

It doesn't matter. I got on my cell phone and called the United reservations desk. Or tried to. United uses a particularly annoying, impractical, and unavoidable voice message system, where it's virtually impossible to tunnel through to a real live human being. After five minutes of pushing buttons and yelling "NO!" into the phone, I finally got hold of said real live human being. (Tip for future use: Just say "AGENT" at any voice prompt; too bad they didn't tell me that up front.)

Said real live human being was a male American, which is unusual these days, but what the hey. The male American on the phone told me that yes, there was a LAX-Chicago-Indianapolis flight that afternoon, but it left in about an hour and a half. There was no way I could get from Burbank to LAX, check in, and make it through security in time. So I decided to spend an extra day in sunny California, and reschedule my flight for early the next morning out of LAX. (No point testing my luck by trying to go through Denver again.)

After changing my reservation over the phone, I trundled over to the airport Hilton, where a gaggle of protestors wearing Ronald Reagan masks were mouthing off about some damn thing or another. I ignored them, checked in, and connected to the Internet to check my email and do a little work; no sense wasting the day. That's when I decided, just for chuckles, to head over to the United website and check out my new reservations.

Good thing I did that.

Monday was October 10th. My new reservations should have been made for Tuesday October 11th. Instead, the screen showed that my reservations were for August 11th. Big difference.

Time for another call to the United reservations center. After punching and screaming my way through voice message hell, I finally got a live human being. I explained my situation, and the person appeared to be somewhat flummoxed. Said he couldn't change the reservation. Said I had to talk to someone in customer support.

Fine. It only took me a half hour to get to this point; plenty of time left on my schedule.

The first person couldn't transfer me to customer support. I had to dial them directly, which I did. After another few minutes of punching and screaming my way through the voice message system, I was patched through to a nice Indian gentleman. He was very helpful. (No sarcasm here; he did a good job.) He listened to my increasingly lengthy explanation of my problem, confirmed what had happened, profusely apologized, said he'd send me a $50 travel voucher for my trouble, and then said I'd have to call back to the reservations desk to make the necessary changes. He gave me explicit instructions on how to bypass the voice message system (hence the "AGENT" trick), provided a magic number so I wouldn't have to repeat my story again, and told me to request a supervisor when I got through. Why customer service couldn't change my reservation, especially after the first reservation agent couldn't do it, either, I didn't question. Bureaucracy in action.

Okay. I redialed reservations, said "AGENT" at the first voice prompt, and got connected to a nice Indian lady. I asked for a supervisor, she said she was one (I didn't question that), then I gave her my magic number. The guy in customer service had done his job, my info was in the system already, and she made the correct reservation lickety split. She apologized for my problem and tried to get me to rent a car from Avis. Ah, upselling.

All in all, I spent over an hour on the phone trying to fix the problem that the first reservations agent had created. Not a good thing. Not a way I would want to run a business. Not the type of situation that would have me seeking out United for my future travel plans.

But my story doesn't end there. I got up bright and early the next morning for my 9:00 a.m. flight. The person at the hotel's front desk said I probably should leave at 5:30 to make it from Burbank to LAX, given the traffic and airport security and all that, so that's what I did. The cab ride took a brief half hour (no traffic at all on the freeways that early in the morning), there was no line at the check-in counter, and no one in front of me in the security line. By 6:15 I'm sitting at the gate area, primed and ready to board my 9:00 flight. It's not like I wouldn't have liked another hour's sleep or anything.

(To rub salt in the wound, I discovered that my original Burbank-to-Denver flight the previous day actually did take off, about three hours late. I would have missed the Denver-to-Indy flight, which really wouldn't have mattered as that flight was cancelled. However, a later Denver-to-Indy flight was operational and there was room on it for me, had I continued to wait in the Burbank airport instead of switching reservations to the next day. C'est la vie.)

The flight from LAX to Chicago was on a 767, which is a plane I generally like. I tried to upgrade to United's Economy Plus class, where you get an extra 4" or so of legroom, but this plane didn't have Economy Plus seating. They did have Business class, but it was all sold out, which meant I had to endure a 3 1/2-hour flight with my knees digging into the seat in front of me. Even worse, my seat was near the back of the plane, where the center seating area starts to taper off, and was offset from the seat in front of me; the result was that the tray table, which would have barely lowered anyway, did not lower into a perfectly horizontal position, instead hitting against my right armrest. This proved to be a bit of a problem when the Wicked Witch of the West, who happened to be moonlighting on stewardess duty, sat a cup of water down on my less-than-horizontal tray. The cup promptly slid forward, slopping its contents onto my lower legs. Cool, refreshing water. Good thing I hadn't asked for a Coke.

(By the way, the entire flight was completely sold out--like all my other recent flights. If the planes are always full, how come all the airlines are going bankrupt? How lousy a businessperson do you have to be to lose money when you and all your competitors are running at full capacity? Seems to me the simple solution is either to cut costs or raise prices. Something's wrong with the concept of capitalism when an entire industry can go under because their prices are too low.)

Chicago to Indy wasn't much better, stuck in a middle seat all the way. Fortunately, that's a short flight -- you barely get up in the air before you head back down again. We were delayed, however, for about 15 minutes because the plane was waiting to be refueled. (Or, as the pilot put it, "We're waitin' for that little ol' fuel truck to pull up alongside us.") I would have thought they'd have that whole refueling thing down to a manageable routine, but what do I know? In any case, I made it home in one piece, and they didn't even lose my luggage.

So that's why I don't like United all that much. Who'd of thought that do-it-yourself customer service wasn't really a good idea?

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Cronies and qualifications

2005-10-07T17:50:00.000-05:00

Examining Harrier Miers' credentials for Supreme Court justice, one has to ask the question: How did the Bushies previously manage to nominate someone as qualified as John Roberts? Miers is obviously unqualified and just as obviously a recipient of rampant Bush loyalist cronyism, while Roberts was neither; they are the yin and the yang of all possible nominees. How did the Bushies get the first one so right and the second one so wrong?

First, to Miers' qualifications. She doesn't have any. Bush nominating his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court would be like me nominating my dentist to be Surgeon General. He might be able to do the job (or he might not), but there are tons of people a lot more qualified. When Miers' strongest points appear to be that she's "nice" and organized and makes a good cup of coffee, you know something fishy is afoot. When challenged as to the wisdom of his choice during a day after press conference, Bush said, "I picked the best person I could find." I guess he wasn't looking too hard. It just goes to show that Bush's circle of cronies and sycophants is actually quite small; I mean, isn't he running out of friends to promote to high places?

I'm not concerned with Miers' political or religious leanings, although others will be. (I admit, it's kind of fun to watch the hard-right social conservatives blow a gasket over Miers' lack of demonstrable conservative bona fides.) I'm concerned with qualifications, and the ability to do the job. We appoint nine whole people to rule as the highest court in the land; they should be the top legal and constitutional minds available. A second-rate lawyer who went to a third-rate law school and became a fourth-rate political flunky and memo editor doesn't qualify, in my book. John Roberts, in spite of his political views (whatever they turn out to be), is the kind of appointee that is hard to vote against, strictly on his extremely impressive resume and real-world experience. The guy's qualified to do the job; Harriet Miers isn't.

The Senate -- both Republican and Democratic members -- should unite to vote against Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court. We should demand more from our public servants than what Bush has given us this time around. (And why did Bush give us such a blatant crony? Because there will be lots of major court cases over the next 4-5 years having to do with the various misdeeds undertaken by the current administration; Bush wants a friend on the court who can be relied on to always vote in his favor.)

My prediction? Under increasing pressure and the likelihood of a strong "no" vote, Miers will withdraw her name from nomination. This is -- or at least it should be -- a non-starter, for all concerned.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Talkin' to myself and feelin' old

2005-10-02T14:59:00.000-05:00

Earlier today I drove by some old guy with a scruffy white beard, standing by himself on a busy street corner. He was just standing there, talking out loud to himself, not another human being within earshot. Crazy old coot, I said to myself.

But then I caught myself. Maybe he's not talking to himself. Maybe he's talking on a cell phone. No phone to be seen, of course, but that didn't mean anything. Maybe he had a corded headset, and instead of talking to himself, he was talking to his sister in Des Moines.

Except I didn't see a cord, and I didn't see a headset. Still, he could have one of those cordless Bluetooth dealies, the ones that are no bigger than a cockroach and fit right inside your ear. Yeah, that's probably it, talking on his Bluetooth headset to his sister in Des Moines.

Although I looked really close as I drove by, and I didn't see anything sticking into or out of his ear. So maybe he really was a crazy old coot, talking to himself in the middle of the day on a busy street corner.

You see, you can't tell anymore who's crazy and who's high-tech. Mental illness has the same outward appearance as high-tech cell phone usage. You walk down any street or shopping mall and you see dozens of people talking out loud to no one in particular. They're either all a bunch of loonies or they're all talking to their sisters in Des Moines. One or the other.

This might be the biggest difference someone from the past might find if they awoke in our 21st century future. Someone fast forwarded from the 1960s would see all these people walking around and talking to themselves, and think either that there's been a vast outbreak of mental disorders or that we've developed some really good drugs. The concept of constant communication via cellular technology wouldn't occur to them.

Of course, maybe we are all crazy, even if we're talking on the mobile to our sisters in Des Moines. In my opinion, you have to be crazy to want to be in such constant contact with other people. What's wrong with a little personal time? Up until recently, that's all we had.

And, before advent of always-on cell phones and cockroach-sized earpieces, if you saw someone talking to himself, you knew he was a little tetched in the head. There wasn't any question about it.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Politics, power, and money

2005-09-30T16:48:00.000-05:00

For the past five years or so I've been trying hard to understand the motivation behind the actions of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. Just why do the Bushies do what they do, and why do their Congressional lapdogs follow in lock-step? I pondered various motivations, from Oedipal Syndrome to power-mad "we're going to rule the world" fantasies, and nothing seemed to make sense. And as for the Congressional lapdoggedness, the only thing I could come up with was some sort of large-scale blackmail scheme involving every single member of the Congress -- Republicans and Democrats alike. But that was too farfetched, even for me; something else had to be at work.

Well, with the indictment of Tom Delay, the real motivations are now clear. The actions of the entire Bush administration are based on simple crony capitalism, albeit taken to a heretofore-unthought of extreme. It's a matter of politics being played for the purpose of power and money, nothing more insidious than that.

Here's how it works. Bush has friends (who have friends who have friends) who would like to profit a bit from their relationship to the Prez. Bush uses his power to financially reward his friends, in the form of government contracts, tax breaks, watered-down regulations, and cushy appointments. The more power he has, the more actions he can take without anyone asking any embarrassing questions. Bush's power grabbing has nothing to do with world domination or ideology; he's only grabbing power to better reward his cronies.

I think I would have been more comfortable if there was a truly evil intent behind the re-emergence of the Imperial Presidency, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and all of Bush's other follies. But it's not evil we're dealing with, it's simple greed. I'd wager that Bush really doesn't care that much about the whole power thing, other than for the perks that come with it. (He certainly doesn't seem to like the responsibilities that come with the power.) A strong Presidential branch is simply in a better position to get its way -- and better serve its cronies.

Examples? How about the whole Iraq war, which ultimately doesn't have much if anything to do with neo-colonialism or nation building or even oil. It's all about the contracts. Bush invades Iraq, demolishes untold number of buildings and facilities, and thus paves the way to hand out contracts to Halliburton and other cronies to rebuild what they've just destroyed. Billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives down the drain, just so a few big contractors can make a few more bucks. Disgusting.

And what keeps Congress from blowing the whistle on this nonsense? Money. This is where Tom Delay comes in. The Hammer controlled the purse strings for millions of corporate lobbying dollars, which he handed out to those Republican congressmen who went along with the game plan. If you didn't play by Delay's (and, by proxy, Bush's) rules, you not only got your funding cut off, you also found yourself on the receiving end of Karl Rove's Rotweiller-like attacks. It was a carrot and stick approach, with lobbying funds as the carrot and loss of funds (and Rove's ire) as the stick.

Looking at things, one has to wonder who was pulling whose strings. Was Delay working for the Bush administration, or was Bush put in place to be Delay's man behind the scenes? It doesn't really matter; one hand washes the other, whichever way you look at it.

This is, without question, the dirtiest bunch of politicos since the Harding administration. By the time prosecutors get to the bottom of it (and they will; the public loves a good political scandal), this will prove to be an even more flagrant abuse of power and privilege than what led to the Teapot Dome scandal in the early 1920s. The rich and the powerful have been using our country's resources to make themselves more rich and powerful; the public should be outraged.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

More sorry servers

2005-09-29T10:49:00.000-05:00

Continuing my previous rant about unprofessional service help, here's another one. I'm at my local sub shop the other day, I'm not the only person in line, and the lady behind the cash register decides to have a nice little conversation with the woman in line just in front of me. But it's not a little conversation, it's a long one. They're gabbing about crystals and healing massages and who knows what, while the line is piling up behind me and steam is starting to issue forth from my ear canals. They talk for a good five minutes, like old pals who haven't seen each other since the last high school reunion, totally oblivious to the other customers in line, before the woman in line finally takes her change and heads off to a table.

I'm all for being friendly with customers (to a point), but his was ridiculous. It was extremely unprofessional and inconsiderate to us other poor shlumps waiting to pay for our rapidly-cooling food. Did this woman -- these women -- totally lack common sense and a minimal awareness of their surroundings? Apparently.

And here's something I've noticed. Foreign-born service staff, or those with ethnic backgrounds, seem to be both more professional and more polite than native-born Caucasians. As an example, the Indian woman at my other local sub shop is unfailingly prompt, cheery, polite, and professional. She always says "thank you" and "you're welcome," and never says "no problem" -- unlike the dumb white kid who serves beside her; he moves so slowly I can see the fresh vegetables wilting while he works, and can always be counted on to mumble "okay dude" when I give him my order (which he then screws up). One suspects it's a cultural thing when the Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, and Mexican waitresses and counterpeople do such an exemplary job while the native-born lunks act as if the whole process is really bumming them out. Yet another sign of American's decline, no doubt.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds might disagree, dude.

Overfamiliarity

2005-09-19T17:32:00.000-05:00

My family was eating breakfast at a local Bob Evans restaurant the other day (not my choice), and my 14 year-old nephew got really annoyed at the waitress, who kept calling him "sweetie." He wasn't a sweetie, my nephew protested, which is true. Besides, referring to a complete stranger (no matter how young or how sweet) by such a familiar term is highly unprofessional.

It happens to me all the time. There's one counterperson at my local bagel shop who insists on calling me "hon." I am not a "hon," I have never been a "hon," and I am extremely annoyed if not downright offended to be referred to as such. In this case the countergirl is about half my age (she in her 20s, me in my 40s), which doesn't excuse anything. (At least she didn't call me "gramps.")

Then there's the guy at the sub shop who always asks me about whatever book I happen to be reading. (I always take a book to lunch, in order to keep from getting bored while refreshing my nutrients.) I didn't go to lunch with the expectation of giving a book report, and it's no one's business what I'm reading, what the book is about, or whether or how much I like it. He tends to get offended when I answer his "what're you reading?" question with the curt phrase, "a book," but at least he gets the point. Let me read in peace, bub.

I'm also not a big fan of waitresses and waiters who sit down in the booth with me while they're taking my order. This seems to be standard operating procedure at my local cheap chain steakhouse. This person who I do not know sits down, completely uninvited, and starts conversing with me like I'm some long lost friend. Well, folks, if I wanted a conversation, I'd eat dinner with someone I actually liked, not this stranger who has an uncanny knowledge of the specials of the day. Excuse me for being surly, but I really didn't go to that restaurant with the express purpose of being chatty.

You might think that my dislike of overly familiar waitstaff contradicts my previous rant about impolite waitstaff -- you know, the guys who offer a lackadaisical "no problem" instead of the expected "thank you" and "you're welcome." But they're really two sides of the same coin. It's not so much about being friendly or not, it's about being polite and professional. When you call me "hon" or try to make unwanted conversation, you're not acting in a professional manner. Overfamiliarity is just as much a service-industry sin as not thanking customers properly for their business. What I want is a professional greeting, prompt and attentive (but not overly attentive) service, and then for the staff to fade into the shadows. I don't want to be their friend. I want to be their customer, and be treated accordingly.

But that's just my opinion, hon; reasonable minds may disagree.

Another reason to hate cell phones

2005-09-13T14:57:00.000-05:00

I'm taking time off from my continuing criticism of the inept and criminally corrupt Bush administration to complain once again about one of my least favorite technological advances -- the cell phone. I continue to believe that cell phones will lead to the death of civilization as we know it, as you can tell from some of my previous rants on the subject (here, here, here, here, and here).

My latest beef with what the Europeans call "mobiles" comes after a day spent at a big industry trade show. Trade shows are not my favorite places to be, but you gotta go where you gotta go. What I encountered this go-round was that people like to talk on their cell phones while they cruise the show floor. The annoying thing, in addition to being forced to listen to their private conversations, is that most people have difficulty walking and talking at the same time. (Thank heaven they didn't try to chew gum, too.) So what you get is a guy walking down the crowded aisle talking on his cell phone, then abruptly stopping in the middle of everything so that he can make some conversational point with someone a couple of hundred miles away. It goes without saying that when you stop dead in your tracks in the middle of flowing pedestrian traffic, you cause incalculable bodily collisions. A guy walks, talks, stops, and causes chaos in his wake. Multiply this situation by dozens if not hundreds of similar walker/talkers, and you see why I'm particularly peeved.

One other annoyance I discovered at the trade show was the profusion of drag-along briefcases. You know what I'm talking about; the oversized briefcase on wheels with a extending handle, like a airline carry-on but used on the ground. The problem with this particular contraption is the floor space it occupies. One person takes up a certain square footage of floor space; dragging a rolling briefcase behind doubles if not triples the floor space used. The issue, then, is of increased density, as the available floor space is cut in half without the crowd itself expanding.

Then there's the related issue of floor space versus air space. That is, it looks as if you're the proper distance from the person in front of you, but the trailing luggage trips you up. I can't tell you how many times I stumbled over low-riding bags when traffic slowed. Combine the mobile briefcase problem with the mobile phone walk/talk/stop problem and you have a complete breakdown of normal traffic patterns -- and more than a few lawsuits waiting to happen.

My solution? Well, other than staying away from trade shows (which is an excellent suggestion), I keep coming back to a universal cell phone ban in public places. That won't solve the rolling luggage problem, of course, but my question there is just how much shit does a person really need to haul around? I mean, I've never carried such a load that I couldn't heft it with my arm or fling it over my shoulder. If you have to drag it, you need to dump it.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.