Jeb & Condo in 2008? Pundits are talking about it.


Click on my name above to send me e-mail.

All Blog entries below are © 2004, J. Alec West.
(click here for 2005 blog comments)
Quick links to the "blogs" below:
  • The Next Tech Bubble To Burst?
  • Discrimination? Against Whom?
  • Anatomy Of A Fuck-Up
  • Kaczynski Was Right!
  • Cause And Effect. 2004
  • Illegal Aliens and Racism
  • Socialism In Business, 101
  • The Disrespect Business
  • Distracted Driving
  • Returning The Compliment
  • Ignorance Is Bliss
  • The RIGHT War For the WRONG Reason
  • Knock Knock - Who's There?
  • Capital Punishment - A Moderate Viewpoint
  • To Thine Own Self Be True
  • Getting To The Point
  • The Truth Divided By 2
  • Finding Humor In BUNGA
  • The Libertarian Luncheon
  • Internet Addiction - Or Something More Sinister
  • Celebs - Do They REALLY Hate The Paparazzi?
  • Looking For Love (In All The Wrong Places)

    Also, two quick links to non-blog articles written earlier:

  • The Plumbing Of MP3
  • The Butchery Of The Pledge - A Mystery


  • The Next Tech Bubble To Burst?
    Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - It's hard to keep up with all the new things on the high-tech shelves. High definition television (HDTV) is the latest toy. And, the next toy due before Christmas 2005 is supposed to compliment it - high definition DVDs (HD-DVD).

    Ordinary DVD players have finally reached a price-point where most people can afford them. And, DVD recorders are reaching a price-point that threatens the future of VHS recorders. Industry's answer to that? Create a new DVD format to make the old format obsolete.

    This is typical. The home electronics industry has been steadily nudging us toward the next new thing. But this time around, there's a difference ... and Toshiba and film studios are proceeding cautiously. While they may say they're putting DVD content on one side of the disk and HD-DVD content on the other to encourage people to make the format transition, I suspect there's another reason ... that they're worried the consumer will not make the leap.

    No, I'm not saying people don't want the next new thing. They always do. What I am saying is that earning power in the U.S. is eroding. Blue collar jobs are being relocated overseas and the jobs replacing them pay less ... all at a time when costs for energy, health care, and God knows what else are going up. So, while white collar earners might be able to afford this upcoming new format, a lot of blue collar earners are hanging onto their VCRs ... not wanting to upgrade to a DVD format they know the industry plans to sunset.

    P.S. I'm speaking as a person who, back in the early seventies, laid out a considerable amount of money on what the industry told me was the next new thing - Quadraphonic Stereo. I bought the SQ decoders from Sony to cover the SQ technology offerings and a JVC 4-channel receiver/amp with four speakers to handle it ... as well as the Discrete technology JVC championed. And as we all know, SQ and Discrete quadraphonic stereo technology now rests in the graveyard of home entertainment systems. The consumer didn't "jump" back then ... and it's possible they won't "jump" now either. The telling sign?

    HDTV television sets are not flying off store shelves. There's a reason. And if you're not going to buy an HDTV set, there's no point in having HD-DVD technology ... is there?

    It's also well to note that, all the while, when those who can afford the technology are salivating over the possibility of being the first on their block to have it, the industry remains in motion. And deep in the bowels of Toshiba's R&D department (and other R&D departments), they're surely working on the "UD-DVD" format that will make HD-DVD obsolete ... and possibly even laying the groundwork for the successor to UD-DVD.


    Discrimination? Against Whom?
    Thursday, November 25, 2004 - In the election earlier this month, a "gay marriage ban" initiative was on the Oregon state ballot. And, the ban passed. However, while I voted in favor of the ban, it had nothing to do with sexuality.

    In a local online forum, a Lesbian asked me if I was in favor of gay marriages. I told her that previously, I'd been dead-set against gay marriages. But, after giving it some thought, I'd changed my mind -- that now, I was against ALL marriages. Why?

    I'm a single man. Federal, state, and county governments discriminate against me by making me pay a larger per-person tax than a married couple. Life, health and auto insurance companies discriminate against me because I'm single ... giving cheaper per-person rates to married couples. And, just about every hotel, travel agent, and tour operator in the world further discriminates against me by shoving their onerous and unfair "double-occupancy requirements" in my face, lest I pay a "singles surcharge" to have a room/cabin all to myself.

    Bottom line? I'm already discriminated against by those who give preferential treatment to heterosexual marriages. Why on Earth should single persons vote to "increase" the size of the preferential-treatment group currently used to discriminate against them? Seriously, if gay marriages were made legal, taxes on single persons would go up ... insurance rates would go up ... and "singles surcharges" would go up with hotels, travel agents, and tour operators -- all to make up for the money they'd lose by giving gay marriage partners preferential treatment they didn't have before.

    P.S. If you're a single person looking for travel bargains, there is some hope for you. According to Valerie D'Elia, host of "The Travel Show" (syndicated on radio), travel agents are just beginning to wake up to a new reality - that 16,000,000 people travel as singles each year. And some agents and tour operators are now catering to that niche market. Click here to check out Valerie's site or visit these sites of travel agents or operators specializing in travel for singles:

  • Club1 Travel
  • Singles Travel International
  • Fastdater Travel
  • But, be careful. Some agents out there may claim to offer travel bargains for singles ... but then try to hook you up with a "travel partner." In short, instead of insulting you with "double-occupancy" requirements, they insult you by mandating "doubling up" as part of the experience. In reality, such an agency is a "couples" agency trying to "dress up" the double occupancy requirement in different clothes, making it seem less discriminatory to singles who are clueless to recognize the ploy for what it really is.

    Anatomy Of A Fuck-Up
    Thursday, November 11, 2004 - If you read my blog entry two days ago (below this entry), you probably saw it as a cautionary notice. So is this one. But this time, I'm talking about the tendency of our society to lean toward the guilty until proven innocent ethic ... an ethic that lulls society into accepting the notion of corporate power being superior to individual rights.

    May 8, 2003 was just an ordinary day for most people. But, it was especially scary for the Astronomy Department at Penn State University. The R.I.A.A. (Recording Industry Association of America) was cracking down on illegal sharing of copyrighted MP3 files, especially by college students, and P.S.U. became the target of a stern cease-and-desist order issued for D.M.C.A. (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) violations. The specific complaint dealt with the sharing of a song by the immensely popular R&B artist, Usher (photo right), whose full name is Usher Raymond.

    This took Penn State by surprise. They take illegal MP3 file-sharing very seriously and began scouring their student servers for any reference to an Usher song in any audio format (MP3 included). But, they came up empty. Then, system administrator, Matt Soccio, decided to look elsewhere ... on servers designated for faculty or department use. BINGO! He found the MP3 file.

    But ...

    The song they found was titled "The Swift Song" ... which is not part of Usher's repertoire. However, "The Swift Song" file was in the private directory of a Professor Emeritus named (ahem) "Peter Usher." The song was a novelty song sung a capella by astronomy students calling their group, "The Chromatics" (photo left). It was one of many astronomy-related songs they'd recorded and burned to CDs for astronomy educators to play for their students. And no, The Chromatics didn't want to sue Professor Usher for having the MP3 (grin).

    Bottom line? The R.I.A.A. didn't even listen to the song. They just assumed guilt, filed the D.M.C.A. complaint, and dumped it on their presumed culprit ... and at a time when faculty and staff were hyper-busy due to upcoming final exams. This stunt almost forced Penn State University's Astronomy Department to halt and reschedule finals since access to university servers was vital during the process (and they'd been taken down to perform a time-consuming and costly internal investigation).

    The R.I.A.A. never did reimburse Penn State University for their investigative expenses. But, they did do one thing they don't normally do ... they apologized. I guess that's something. But something serious needs to be done about this situation. When powerful corporations and their equally powerful lobby groups can wrongly target innocent people and get away with only an apology, that's just plain wrong. Conservatives are continually whining about "frivolous lawsuits." Perhaps liberals should start whining about "frivolous persecutions." Food for thought.

    (Click here to download or listen to "The Swift Song" ... by The Chromatics, not Usher. And if the link ceases to work at any time in the future, let me know and I'll put the file up.) The song deals with the heady topic of "gamma rays."


    Kaczynski Was Right!
    Tuesday, November 9, 2004 - During this nation's lifetime, production of goods has gone through three phases. During the craft phase, individual workmen produced goods and largely stood behind them if they were made poorly ... repairing or replacing them, or even refunding money if a customer was still dissatisfied. Then, with the industrial revolution came mass-production, the mechanization phase where machines were made to serve the needs of their operators. However, while machines made goods faster, some mass-produced items were made defective. This gave birth to two things previously unheard of in the history of product marketing ... things I refer to as the silent screw and the acceptable fuck-up factor.

    The silent screw is a means by which a product seller "screws" a certain percentage of their consumer-base, but at the same time, makes it appear to consumers that they're being done a favor. The prime example of this is the "warranty." Warranties were not meant to benefit consumers, they were meant to limit the liability of the seller to a specified time or usage limit. During the craft phase, warranties were unnecessary. Craftsmen simply produced a good product and stood behind it ... or they went out of business. But during the mechanization phase, product creators embraced the acceptable fuck-up factor ... the philosophy that it's OK to screw a certain percentage of their consumer-base as long as the majority of consumers remained satisfied.

    Think of warranties in this way. Warranties are not "given" to you out of the kindness of a seller's heart. They are "sold" to you (included in the product price) along with the product. Consumers who buy products buy them with the implied understanding that they accept the warranty. If you bought a TV with a 12-month warranty and it died in the 13th month, see how far you'd get in court trying to bring the seller to task. They'd whip out their warranty which you accepted at the time you bought the TV, the judge would nod, and that would be the end of the trial. And, consumers are largely ignorant of the silent screw ... which accounts for good sales figures for so-called "extended warranties." In essence, sellers are telling you "We'll stand behind our product a little longer than we were willing to stand behind it if you're willing to pay for the privelege." And instead of demanding manufacturer accountability, consumers just hand the money over to the seller, bend over, and say, "Yazzuh, boss. Stick it up there high and tight."

    Remember Ted Kaczynski? He doesn't look like much. But you're looking at the photo of a child prodigy who attended Harvard at the age of 16, got his PhD in Mathematics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, went on to become an Assistant Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and had nine mathematical treatises published in scholarly journals between 1964 and 1969. But then came a tenth treatise in 1971 ... an essay that had nothing to do with mathematics. It was pure sociology and Ted mailed copies of it to several of his colleagues. Shortly after that, Ted "dropped out" ... and gave the F.B.I. a chase that lasted 18 years. It wasn't until Ted's brother, David, read a later writing by Ted, recognized his style, and pointed the F.B.I. in Ted's direction that Ted was finally brought to justice. Ted Kaczynski had transformed himself into a person who came to be known as The Unibomber. He got that name because he targeted UNIversity professors to receive a mailBOMB. Alternately, some use a different Unabomber spelling ... changing the "i" to "a" to make reference to the packages being shipped by AIRfreight.

    There is no doubt that Ted Kaczynski was very "unstable." And there's no doubt that the bombs he sent to university professors constituted criminal acts deserving of prison time or, at least, an extended vacation in a "happy home." But, sociologists have read both his 1971 essay (click here) and his much-later work referred to as the Unibomber Manifesto (click here). And, unstable though he may have been, many sociologists agree that Ted's writings had "substance" ... that his observations about where society was going were profound and possibly quite accurate. In short, he was a "nut" ... but a brilliant nut.

    Kaczynski correctly predicted the third phase of production ... automation. The difference between the phase of mechanization and the phase of automation is profound. Under mechanization, machines were built to serve the needs of their operators (and consumers). But under automation, operators (and consumers) are expected to adapt themselves to serve the needs of the machines. You can prove this to yourself by performing a simple experiment:

    Write a personal check to a friend ... say, for $5.00 ... and ask them to cash it. However, before giving the friend your check, turn the check over and write a short poem (any poem will do) in the area marked DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE. Now, what is more likely ... that the bank will contact the company making its automated check-readers and order it to make the readers more human-friendly ... or that the bank will contact you and, perhaps politely, "order" you to not write below the line again (in short, "order" you to conform to the needs of their reader machines)? In this scenario, and many many similar scenarios, machines have been elevated to the role of "master" and humans have been demoted to the role of "slave." Really, does DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE sound like a "request" or more like a "demand?"
    This demotion of human stature to slavedom can also be seen in many hiring scenarios. During the 1950s, if you wanted a job, you'd go to a Personnel Office and fill out an application. Nowadays, if you want a job, you'd go to a company's Human Resources Office and fill out an application. The Person has been taken out of Personnel and human stature and worth has been diminished to that of a mere Resource.

    Ted Kaczynski was a nut, a criminal, but perhaps the wisest amateur sociologist of his day. He envisioned the future (our "present") as a time when automation would be so pervasive that it would threaten democracy and our freedom. The most recent example of this was the 2004 Presidential Election ... where a few states used "blackbox" voting ... machines counting votes with NO BACKUP FOR HUMAN RE-COUNT in case of a challenge. And, if you're willing to devote 30 minutes of your time to watch a video, you'll see the truth of it.

    You'll need Quicktime software installed to watch it (click here to download). Once installed, click here if you use a modem or here if you have a broadband connection. After watching it, I'm hoping you'll do what I've already done ... write letters to my elected officials to MAKE SURE there's always a human element in the voting process ... a backup procedure in case of noticed errors or potential challenges. If you don't, perhaps you should become familiar with Walden O'Del (photo right), the CEO of Diebold Corp. (makes the blackbox voting machines). He may very well become our REAL President of the United States ... whether or not you vote for him.


    Cause And Effect, 2004
    Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - The polls are closed and the people have spoken - four more years for King George. I voted for Kerry but confess I had no real liking for the man as a candidate. The only reason I voted for Kerry is because I liked Bush less ... and because my ideal candidate, General Wesley Clark, asked his supporters to support Kerry. Now ... on its face, the convincing victory of President Bush seems to indicate a mandate. In reality, it does not. The difference between Kerry/Bush popular-vote wise was only 3%. And while Cheney, at the victory speech, crowed about the fact that Bush received more popular votes than any President in U.S. history, he failed to mention the fact that Kerry received more popular votes than any Presidential contender in U.S. history ... simply because a lot of people voted. But, what brought the voters out in droves?

    True, both parties did a helluva job in mobilizing their support bases. No doubt about it. And, I admit to being very impressed at the voter turnout. Kudos to both parties on that score. But, there was one other difference between this election year and the 2000 election year. This year, 11 states (including Ohio, crucial to determining the Presidency) had one issue on their ballots ... guaranteeing to mobilize the religious right REGARDLESS of who was running for President. I'm talking about the issue of Gay Marriage.

    11 states had constitutional amendments proposed for state constitutions to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. And all 11 states passed their respective amendments, including my state (Oregon) considered to be the one state where such a proposal might fail. Just as some Gore supporters blamed Ralph Nader for siphoning off votes in 2000, I don't think it would be too far fetched for Kerry supporters to blame gay activists for choosing 2004 as the year to make Gay Marriage an issue. There is certainly no way to prove this ... but I suspect that if gay activists had waited until 2005 to make it an issue, a lot of religious right voters may have stayed at home. And, as a result, there may have been a different result in swing-state Ohio ... and possibly other close states as well. This may have been a big blunder on the part of gay activists. Certainly, Gay Marriage would have fared better under a Kerry Presidency than under a Bush Presidency. Food for thought.

    ***UPDATE, Nov. 4*** - On CSPAN today, James Rosen, White House Correspondent for Fox News, mentioned that a Republican "retreat" was held in Philadelphia just prior to the failed attempt to propose a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. Retreat attendees knew the attempt would fail but said it would be "enough" for the President to show support for it. This would appease his religious right constituents. But, they also discussed how they could "use" this issue to the President's advantage. They remembered that the closeness of the 2000 election was partly due to a low turnout among religious right voters. THAT is when it was suggested that Republicans should champion such amendments to state constitutions and make certain that the religious right voters knew it was an issue ... thereby assuring a much higher voter turnout among them. The strategy succeeded in all 11 states.

    Whether or not this was a "determining" factor in who got the vote in the close swing-states is still a matter of conjecture. But it's clear that Republicans knew it would be a factor.



    Illegal Aliens and Racism
    Thursday, August 19, 2004 - More than once, I've heard liberals suggest that failure to have sympathy for illegal aliens (whom they prefer to call "undocumented workers") is anti-Latino racism. Indeed, there is racism involved in this equation ... but not the kind of racism liberals suggest.

    My ex-wife is a Filipino immigrant. When she came here, she submitted INS petitions to bring her mother, brother, and two sisters here. Five years later when she applied for naturalization, we went to the INS office in Seattle. And, at that time, she asked the INS officer why it was taking so long to get their petitions approved. The INS officer explained to us both that the U.S. economy could only sustain a certain amount of immigration each year. And while they have set schedules to bring quotas of aliens from different nations, those set schedules are "pushed back" every time an illegal alien crosses the border.

    Nowadays, we live in a culture that seems hell-bent on giving preferential treatment to one racial subgroup - the Latino - at the expense of Asian, African, and European immigrants who filled out the forms, paid the fees, and waited their turn in line to share their piece of the American dream. Illegal Latino immigrants are also the worst enemies of "legal" immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries ... pushing back their windows of opportunity as well ... and putting a "guilt by association" stigma on them they do not deserve.

    Almost every time this topic comes up in a forum, it fills up with posts from native-born citizens. Just once, I'd like to see a frank discussion of this topic by a forum of "legal resident aliens." At one time, I didn't think the illegal alien problem was an issue to be concerned about. It took marriage to an Asian-American and seeing things through HER eyes to wake me up to the REAL racism at play in this debate.

    And please, don't hand me the tired old argument, "But, illegals are merely doing the work Americans won't do." Poppycock. More and more, you'll find such jobs being done by legal Asian immigrants or legal Russian (and other post-Soviet-state) immigrants. My Filipino brother in law works for one local-area farm and tells me his boss "prefers" Filipino and Russian workers to Mexicans ... and it has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the fact that most of his Filipino and Russian workers are willing to wait for bi-weekly paychecks while most of his Mexican workers want to be paid in cash daily (with no paper trail). The difference? Workers willing to wait for bi-weekly paychecks can be counted on to be in the fields day after day. Workers wanting daily cash payments cannot. It's a reliability issue, not a racial issue.

    P.S. Breif addendum on the PC-speak term, "undocumented worker." If a man shoved a gun in the face of a teller and demanded all the money in their cash drawer, would that man be a "bank robber" ... or would he merely be a man making an "undocumented withdrawal?" Point is, illegal aliens are doing pretty much the same thing ... prolonging wait times for their legal counterparts to get to this country and keeping money out of THEIR cash drawers.

    Socialism In Business, 101
    Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - The online-music retail business in the United States is standing on the edge of a cliff, waiting to be pushed off ... unless they wake up to a new global reality. And, the humor (or perhaps irony) of it is that the Music Industry itself led them to the cliff's edge by employing Socialism in business. Perform one of the two experiments below to see what I mean by "Socialism in business."
    (1) - Choose a department store chain in your area that has one store in a "rich" neighborhood and one store in a "poor" neighborhood. Go to the "rich" store first and find an item that's not advertised as "on sale." Make note of the item's description and price. Now, go to the "poor" store and find the same item. Not only will you find it, you'll find that the price may be cheaper than the price was in the "rich" store. When Newberry's store was still in Portland, Oregon, I caught them in the act of doing this.

    (2) - Choose a popular mail-order catalog business. Order a catalog. If you live in a ZIPcode area considered "affluent," ask a friend in a "less affluent" ZIPcode area to order the same catalog. When they arrive, meet with your friend and compare catalogs. Not only will you find many of the same items in your catalogs, you'll find that these items are priced higher for you than they are for your friend. Lerner has been caught in the act of doing this.
    Why? Rich people don't always stay rich and poor people don't always stay poor. Point is, businesses want to have the widest possible consumer base. If you're used to shopping at XYZ MARKET and are a satisfied customer, chances are you'll want to continue shopping at XYZ MARKET if your income level allows you (or forces you) to change your residence. And businesses milk both ends of the economic spectrum by charging higher prices of their affluent customers to subsidize the lower prices charged their less-affluent customers.

    Robin Hood would be proud. Take from the rich and give to the poor (hoping all the while that the rich never find out they've been "taken") ... Socialism in its purest form.

    Now, let's assume you want to get music on the Internet but are unwilling to risk the wrath of the R.I.A.A. (Recording Industry Association of America) by using Peer-To-Peer filesharing programs. You have a lot of options now. Two of the big online music retailers, both legitimate, are
    iTunes and Rhapsody. Prices vary depending upon what you download. But, a rough average puts single-song downloads near $1.00 and album downloads near $10.00. Fair, eh?

    But ... remember where you live. If you live in the U.S.A., you live in the most affluent country in the world.

    What are people paying for music outside the United States? And, I'm not talking about pirated music. For example, if you flew to Moscow, Russia and wanted to buy a legitimate Madonna CD, you'd find that the CD is priced far less than it's priced in the U.S.A. And the industry's reasoning behind pricing them cheaply in Russia is the SAME reasoning used by Newberry's and Lerner. They're priced at a level the "market" will bear to promote the widest possible consumer base ... with U.S. consumers paying the most while Russian consumers pay less for the same product. In essence, the U.S. music consumer is subsidizing the lower prices paid for music in Russia.

    Prior to the Internet, music retailers were pretty safe. The only way U.S. music consumers could access these lower prices would be by costly trips overseas or costly and time-consuming mail-order scenarios. But now comes the "great equalizer" ... the Internet ... and the worm has turned in a very capitalist direction.

    MediaServices, Inc. is the Russian parent corporation behind one of the new legitimate online music retailers, AllOfMP3.com ... which is scaring the BEJEEZUZ out of their U.S. competitors. And, they're in partnership with South Korea's big-name electronics giant, the Samsung Corporation. Why pay $1.00 per song download when you can pay between TWO and EIGHT CENTS for the same download (they charge by the megabyte, not by the song or album)? Everything they sell is legal and artists are compensated by licensing agreements through R.O.M.S. (the Russian "R.I.A.A."). The difference is that the point-of-sale is in Russia. Therefore, consumers only pay what they'd be charged in Russia for the service. Two weeks ago, eCommerce Times magazine interviewed the CIO of MediaServices, Inc., Vadim Mamotin. It's quite an eye-opener and you can read it here:

    http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/34512.html

    Earlier, I used the term "great equalizer" to describe the Internet. And, that's just what it is. As more U.S. online-music consumers discover AllOfMP3.com, I predict this service will cause a major shakeup in the industry. Domestic online music providers will be forced to offer advertiser-supported "near-free" or "free" downloads just to stay in the game. To compete with "pennies," you must charge fewer pennies (or none at all). It's one thing for "physical" storefronts to have price disparity ... knowing that most consumers won't bother to leave their area for comparison shopping. But, it's quite another thing when it comes to "virtual" storefronts with competitors only one click away.

    Ask yourself this question. If you went out driving to buy gasoline, you wouldn't drive all over town to find the cheapest pump. But what if you came up to a corner with two gas stations across the street from one another? And what if one charged $2.04 per gallon while the other charged TEN CENTS per gallon? Which station would you pull into?

    God bless Capitalism! Marx and Lenin must be rolling over in their graves over this, hehehe. As the article linked to above suggests, online-music consumers in the U.S. are flocking to Russia now, despite Mamotin's statement that U.S. business is "insignificant" (he's just being cautious, hehe). Sooner or later, the bubble will burst ... somewhere.

    The Disrespect Business
    Sunday, April 18, 2004 - For the most part, I've weened myself off television. And lately, I've been weening myself off talk-radio as well. Reason? Nowadays, it appears that disrespect is a popular product. People seem to LOVE seeing or hearing other people being disrespected. It runs the gamut from TV shows like "The Weakest Link" where contestants vote to dismiss a fellow contestant from the competition - and not necessarily because they've incorrectly answered the most questions ... to TV shows like "Survivor" where contestants vote to dismiss a fellow contestant - and not necessarily because they're the least fit contestant. But, this disrespect has found backward compatability to the realm of radio - flourishing, in fact, in the talk-radio realm.

    As a political moderate, I love a good debate between conservatives and liberals. But, it seems like the days of George Will's conservative logic and Walter Cronkite's liberal logic have gone by the wayside. I remember when taking debate classes in high school and college that the easiest way to lose a debate was by becoming noticeably angry at your opponent ... by abandoning the logic of a debate and resorting to name-calling or personal slurring. But nowadays, talk-show hosts can make a heckuva lot of money by doing just that. And, the reason they can get away with this childish behavior is because the listening public LOVES it.

    I've heard Michael Savage make fun of Barbara Streisand's nose. I've heard Rusty Humphries make fun of Al Gore's personal mannerisms. I've even heard local KXL host, Lars Larson, disrespect an entire city of people by referring to it as "The People's Republic of Eugene" (broadbrushing liberality over an entire city when a number of conservatives live there). Larson has even resorted to name-calling. He refers to Governor Kulongoski as "Governor TaxAndGougeMe." And, before you think so, I'm not saying that this type of childishness is exclusively conservative. Last week while listening to KPOJ-AM, Portland's "Air America" station calling itself "progressive," I heard show host Randi Rhodes make fun of Rush Limbaugh's hearing problems.

    Excuse me ... but am I the only person in town who mourns the loss of logical political debate on an adult level???

    FWIW, the disrespect business in broadcasting isn't a new thing ... just enjoying a recent upsurge in popularity. Perhaps the original rancor-based show to air was in 1949 when Joe Pyne began his career on WILM radio (Wilmington, Delaware). It became popular enough to allow Pyne, like Rush Limbaugh did (though short-lived), to make the transition from radio to TV syndication in 1965.

    Perhaps the most memorable confrontation Joe Pyne had was with rocker, Frank Zappa. Pyne, an arch conservative, had his leg shot off (replaced by a wooden leg) during the Korean War. Zappa, of course, was the exact opposite - a long-haired hippie-type guy and an arch liberal. The first thing Pyne said to Zappa was, "So, I guess your long hair makes you a woman." Zappa, without batting an eyelash, calmly replied, "So, I guess your wooden leg makes you a table."

    Pyne later died of cancer. Following his death, the country enjoyed (for the most part) a welcome dry-spell from this type of childish broadcasting. Eventually, though, came the Morton Downey Jr's, the Jerry Springers, and others who may or may not opinionize ... but otherwise play to the lowest common denominator of viewership or listenership.

    And I for one am considering abandoning the talk-radio format altogether until (if ever) the audience(s) grow up and tell these immature name-callers to hit the electronic road.

    P.S. - I'm about to date myself (grin). Remember the Ted Mack Amateur Hour or a similar show hosted by Arthur Godfrey? The modern day equivalent to those shows is called "American Idol." The difference? Neither Mack nor Godfrey insulted or berated the contestants. If they lost, they just lost ... and that was that. But with "American Idol," one of the most popular judges is the guy who always seems to find something unflattering to say about the loser(s) ... including his recent comment that one lady singer "looks like Jay Leno."

    I find it interesting that nowadays, one of the most infuriating problems parents have with their schools is the problem of "bullying" and/or "teasing" ... with schools doing little or nothing about the problem until they get threatened with a lawsuit. And, I envision the parents of bullies punishing them by saying, "Go straight to your room NOW." And, they go to their rooms, flip on their TVs, and watch ADULTS bullying, teasing, or berating one another ... on shows that are at the top of the ratings ladder.

    Monkey see, monkey do.

    Distracted Driving
    Thursday, April 15, 2004 - Lately, "distracted driving" has become a hot topic. And, I confess that I'm guilty of doing it from time to time. Yes, I sometimes drink coffee while driving. Yes, I sometimes wolf down a burger while driving. And a few times, I've even gone so far as to eat a Cup-O-Noodles while driving (it takes practice, hehe). But most of the time, I'm a good driver.

    The biggest violators, however, are more easily noticed. First, there are those idiots who feel that playing hip-hop music at the same decibel level of an F-15 jet is a neat thing to do. Part of me wants to run idiots like that off the road. The other part (the one that wins out) makes me smile, knowing that at age 80, my hearing will be 10 times better that theirs will be at 35. Then, of course, there are the people who drive while having a cellphone conversation.

    Now ... I have a cellphone but only use it for emergencies (my other phone is a broadband phone subject to constraints of power failures or ISP failures). And, I can't help but have some sympathy with cellphone users who use "hands-free" speaker phones. To me, it seems just as OK as having a conversation with a passenger in the same car ... and no one I know of has advocated the banning of conversations with passengers. The rest of them -- the idiots who hold cellphones in one hand or slap on headphones that filter out traffic noise (that all but deaf drivers are supposed to hear to drive safely) -- well, I've got an idea.

    Disclaimer - The device mentioned next is illegal in the United States.

    Some clever chap has figured out how to make a pocket-sized cellphone disruptor. Simply turn it on and all cellphones within a certain distance from you turn into silent doorstops, hehe. I happen to know a theater that uses them ... and I'm certain other indoor places use them as well. An example is the
    WaveShield device sold in Britain. It's a "personal" device that works only within a 10-meter area. But, such a device is great for bus or light-rail riders who want a "quiet" ride to/from work (the way such rides USED to be). And, of course, drivers can pull up next to other drivers gabbing away and ZAP them off-the-air ... as a public service, of course.

    But, there have been more extreme examples of distracted driving. One example (I won't describe it because it's sexual) was shown in the film adaptation of Stephen King's "Thinner." But, my favorite example happened locally. And, I wrote a letter to The Oregonian they sadly didn't print.

    A few years ago, a Portland street-preacher predicted there'd be a major earthquake on a certain date ... and that if it didn't happen, he'd leave town. Well ... it didn't happen and whether or not he did leave town is something I don't know. But, he claimed the prediction came from a "vision" he had reading the Bible while driving across the I-405 bridge. This was the short letter I sent to The Oregonian:
    "I make two predictions. First, there will be no earthquake on that date. Secondly, I predict that if this preacher continues his practice of reading scripture while driving on the freeway, he'll soon form a relationship with the creator far-closer than the one he currently enjoys ... and that it won't take an earthquake to make it happen."
    But, there is one more extreme example ... this one happening just the other day in Toronto. Click here to read about it ... and, if this story disappears, I'll tell you what the driver was doing.

    Returning The Compliment
    Monday, April 12, 2004 - Recently, I found a post I'd made to the OregonLive.com forum was mentioned in the online weblog of Dr. Hoopsberg. Anyhoo, I'm flattered Dr. Hoopsberg gave it a mention and wanted to mention his weblog to return the compliment. My post dealt with a guest on the 4/11/2004 Coast To Coast AM radio show. He told Art Bell he believed that intelligent life in the universe was "rare." I disagreed with him and sent him an email telling him why ... which was the essence of my forum post. Nuff said on that.

    BUT ... there is one more thing I wanted to say. I'm a participant in the SETI@home project. Participants install a program on their computer that does one thing. If your computer is turned on and, while you're not using it, the program uses your system's computing power to perform an analysis of radio signals received by the Arecibo Observatory's radio-telescope. When it finishes an analysis, it uploads the results to SETI@home and downloads another signal to analyze. It's a good way to become a participant in the search for extraterrestrial life, doesn't cost you a penny, and only uses your system when you're otherwise frittering away your time (ie., leaving your computer on when you go to the bathroom, sitting in front of your monitor and doing nothing but reading what's on your screen, etc.). And, as an extra benefit, the program doubles as a rather neat-looking screen-saver if you so enable it.

    Interested? Click
    here for info and a download link.

    Ignorance Is Bliss
    Saturday, April 3, 2004 - I think I've discovered the origin of the old courtroom saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." No, I'm not going to court anytime soon for any reason (I hope). But recently, I've been involved in a local political campaign. And, the question came up recently, "What are the regulations covering political signage?" To answer that question, a few of us brave souls on the committee visited the following website:
    http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/dtd/zoning/zdo/
    Now ... mind you, these are only the zoning laws for Clackamas County, Oregon, and do not include other laws that might apply statewide or in the cities within Clackamas County. Lots of laws, aren't there? And they just apply to zoning.

    So, where did the old saying come from? I suspect it started from when we were all children in grammar school. There was always one teacher we all had (usually more than one) who was impatient with our learning processes. If you, for example, worked a math problem incorrectly and came up with an incorrect answer, they'd say, "If you didn't understand how to do the problem, why didn't you ask how?" This of course assumes that the child knew beforehand that they didn't understand the problem. It does not, however, take into consideration the logical alternative ... that the child may have been convinced that they were doing the problem correctly and saw no need to "ask how." Really, human history is replete with many examples of "learning by mistake." There's nothing inherently wrong with this. It's quite human to learn from our own mistakes.

    In any case, I suspect that many courtroom judges started out in such classrooms. And, their teachers taught them well ... that it was OK to assume that people did wrong things because they WANTED to, and not because they simply didn't know that what they were doing was wrong. That's worse than being found "guilty until proven innocent." It's being found "guilty by reason of humanity."

    In any case, there are an awful lot of laws out there. And, there are more laws piled up on the books every day. It's a neverending process. Therefore, expecting everyone to be aware of every law there is (or expecting everyone to know that one given scenario is even covered under a law) is an inhuman and preposterous expectation. So, if I ever find myself in front of a judge who tells me, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," I may risk being found in contempt of court by replying, "Ignorance of our humanity is worse." Then again, maybe the judge wouldn't "get it" (snicker).

    P.S. on things learned in schools. One day a few years ago, it was approaching the end of my section's workday ... just one or two minutes left ... when one of my co-workers piped up to our supervisor, "Excuse me, won't there be any overtime today?" Everybody else groaned. But, I replied to her, "I'll just bet that when you were young, and seconds before the school-bell rang at the end of the day, you were one of those kids who'd raise their hand and pipe up:
    'Teacher, teacher, you forgot to give us our homework!'"
    She didn't "get it" either.

    The RIGHT War For The WRONG Reason
    Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - I'm going to come clean on something. I was 100% in favor of going into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. But, I was 0% in favor of the "reason" Bush used to do it unilaterally. In my opinion, Bush blew a golden opportunity to depose Saddam with a reason EVERY nation would have understood ... and a reason that could have had French troops by our side in the battle.

    As soon as the United Nations started bickering over Resolution 1441, I started yelling (into the void), "Why in the heck isn't anyone talking about Resolution 688?" In short, I was appalled that the world community in general (and the U.S. in particular) was fretting over a "weapon count" and doing nothing about the "body count" -- that since Saddam Hussein took power, 4,000,000 Iraqis had "disappeared" courtesy of his security apparatus (that's one-sixth of Iraq's population) in what could be referred to as "Holocaust Lite."

    From Resolution 688, Security Council demand #2 (quote): "Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected."

    For proof of this Holocaust, Bush could have relied on this report drafted in 2001 by two French human-rights organizations and published in English in 2002 (you'll need Acrobat Reader for this):
    http://www.fidh.org/magmoyen/rapport/2002/iq315a.pdf
    WARNING - Reading this 44-page report titled, "Iraq: An Intolerable, Forgotten, and Unpunished Repression," is NOT for the faint of heart.

    Point is, a Holocaust of this proportion could not be ignored by the U.N. Security Council if it was mentioned ... especially since the French report indicated its status as "ongoing." And, the French would have had a hard time vetoing a move to depose Saddam on those grounds since the grave nature of this Holocaust was attested to by their own countrymen.

    Had Bush used that approach, he'd have accomplished two things. First, one of the earlier criticisms of the United States when the U.N. was first formed was our late entry into World War II ... that if we'd entered sooner, the Holocaust may have been less catastrophic. Bush could have "turned the tables" on the U.N. ... putting them on the hot seat for the very same reason used in post-WW2 years to put the U.S. on the hot seat. Secondly, he could have marshalled a far wider coalition ... possibly including the French. And if the U.N. rebuffed us for any reason, we could have STILL gone into Iraq ... only this time, with our heads held high. WMD concerns would have been moot ... leaving WMD as something we could look for at our leisure after the conflict instead of it becoming a political albatross around Bush's neck. And after the conflict, the reconstruction of Iraq could have become a task for the world community, not the sole responsibility of the American taxpayer.

    There must be a better leader out there ... somewhere.

    Knock Knock - Who's There?
    Thursday, March 18, 2004 - The sun is shining, the flowers are in bloom, and birds are singing their songs. What does this all mean? Well, among other things, it means that your door is about to be knocked upon by some people you'd rather not talk to. We each have our own way of dealing with these unwelcome visitors. And, I thought I'd share a few of my own tips. Feel free to use them or tailor a variation of them to suit your own needs.

    Greenpeace - A few years ago, a Greenpeace activist came to my door and asked if I'd be willing to join the organization. I told him that while I supported many of their positions, I couldn't join any group that justified collateral damage. He asked me to explain.

    I told him that, years earlier, activists suspended themselves by rope from the bridge connecting Astoria, Oregon to Washington state (at the mouth of the Columbia River). They were only a few short feet from the water's surface. The reason activists did this was to prevent the shipment of spent nuclear-fuel rods through Columbia's mouth. However, I told him that this act also prevented legitimate river shippers (grain, timber, food, etc.) from navigating Columbia's mouth ... costing them time and money. And, in some cases, cargo was perishable - forcing shippers to "dump" their cargo (and further exacerbating the environment). His reply? "Well, sometimes the innocent have to suffer for the greater good."

    "So, what you're telling me is this," I said. "If my neighbor's dog shits on my lawn, I have the right to kick all the dogs in my neighborhood for the sins of that one dog."

    "You're not thinking clearly," he replied.

    "Well, one of us isn't," I shot back as I closed the door in his face.

    Door-to-Door Salespersons - I've noticed that most such salespersons are selling something that assumes you will continue to be a resident in your home. Merely tell them, "Sorry, I'm going to be moving next week." That usually shuts them up and sends them on their way.

    Door-to-Door Evangelists - First, a disclaimer statement. I'm a Deist. That means I believe in the concept of a "creator," "creative force," or "creative intelligence" but do not subscribe to any organized religious sect. It was not always this way. In my youth, I was a fellowship leader in M.Y.F. (Methodist Youth Fellowship). With other young people under my wing, I used to go door to door to witness the "good news" of Jesus. Later, as I grew older, I found Christianity too confining and saw a "larger world" of religious thought. My corruptor (grin)?

    Actually, there were many influences. But, my primary influence was the late Alan Watts. Watts was an Anglican Priest for over 20 years. Then, one day, he (his words) "woke up from the dream." He left the priesthood and embarked on a study of comparative religion ... giving a multitude of lectures on the topic prior to his death in 1975. For those interested, the lectures can still be heard on a number of radio stations ... and can be bought from his son at
    AlanWatts.com in audio and video formats. I highly recommend his lecture titled, "Jesus - His Religion or the Religion About Him."

    In any case, I feel that everyone has a right to believe whatever they wish to believe. However, I now think that door-to-door evangelism crosses the line of belief into the realm of arrogance ... an "I'm right, you're wrong, and you need my help" condescending attitude ... an attitude that insults the intelligence of most people, even though the evangelist's intentions may be honorable.
    "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
    (a 16th Century proverb, author unknown, sometimes wrongly attributed to Samuel Johnson)
    Anyhoo, that's where I'm coming from (end-of-disclaimer).

    I have one friend with a peephole in his door. When he notices a religious caller through the peephole (they usually travel in twos and almost always carry Bibles or literature), he immediately disrobes and answers the door naked. He hasn't been arrested ... so far (grin). Another friend (a teacher) has a rather inspired method for dealing with them. When he knows he's confronted by religious callers, he excuses himself for a second and returns with a notepad and pencil, asking, "Could I have your names and addresses?" When they ask him why he wants that information, he replies, "Well, if you feel you have the right to invade my privacy to discuss your religious beliefs, you'd certainly have no problem with me invading your privacy to discuss mine." They usually say something like, "God loves you," and walk away.

    I've dealt with religious callers a number of ways. Once, two Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door. And, the first thing they did was hand me a recent copy of their publication, "The Watchtower." I looked at the cover, looked back at them and said, "Answer me a question. When I was younger, I read copies of your magazine. And, I notice a recent change. When I was younger, your magazine's cover-art depictions of Heaven showed only white people there. But now, the depictions show people of all races. When did your church decide that colored people can go to Heaven?" This flustered them. They didn't know whether I was complimenting their acceptance of diversity ... or whether I was a closet racist (grin). One of them replied, "I don't know." I said, "Well, when you do know, come see me again," and closed the door on them.

    A newer tactic used by door-to-door evangelists is to ask you a question the moment you open the door ... to establish control and put you on the defensive. One time, the question asked me was, "Sir, are you going to Heaven?" I replied, "God, I hope not. In Heaven, everything is taken care of for you ... no wants, no worries. To enjoy my existence, I need challenges and adversity to overcome ... and existence without challenge and adversity would be Hell to me." They thanked me for my time and walked away. But, my favorite encounter with a question-popper was one where my ability to ad-lib and think on my feet was put to the test.

    "Sir," one caller of two asked, "do you believe the original sin actually took place?" My mind churned for a couple of seconds and I replied, "Absolutely. Not only that, but God's punishment can be explained logically." Their eyebrows raised as I continued. "When God created Adam and Eve, they were completely naked. And, in the Garden of Eden, they were both witnesses to the other animals being fruitful and multiplying. So logically, in order for Adam and Eve to watch these sexual acts without becoming aroused themselves, Adam and Eve must have been gay." Their foreheads crinkled. "And, since Eve was made from Adam and Adam made in God's image, God must have been gay as well." Their mouths opened. "So, when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of knowledge and consumated their relationship sexually, God, being gay, was logically displeased. And God's punishment was logical as well -- heterosexuality! From that time forward, people were forced to suffer the indignities of a heterosexual lifestyle ... and God's curse to Eve, 'In pain shalt thou bring forth life,' was fulfilled." They were slowly shaking their heads as I said, "I'm glad we had this talk," and closed the door on them. And, as they walked away, I peeked at them from my curtain ... and they were still shaking their heads as they left my property.

    Capital Punishment - A Moderate Viewpoint
    Sunday, March 7, 2004 - Well, at least I think it's a moderate viewpoint. However, when I mentioned it to a few friends, one of them asked me if Genghis Khan was a moderate (grin). Consider this.

    No matter what kind of administration has been in power, criminal convictions have by and large remained constant over the course of time (in proportion to the population). In short, no amount of liberal "correction" or conservative "punishment" has altered the prevailing crime-rate. If we are an humane society, it is our duty to provide adequate prison space to accommodate that percentage. Any less and we're inhuman. Any more and we're fiscally wasteful. Let's just assume for ease of mathematics sake that, at any given time, 1% of our population is convicted of a felony crime and serving time. That means we should provide enough prison space for that 1%. With that scenario in place, I'd propose this moderate approach to capital punishment.

    First, abolish capital punishment as a sentencing mechanism. In short, no judge or jury would have the right to sentence anyone to death. Instead, all convicted felons would be assigned a crime-severity rating. This is already done in some municipal/county jails to determine who to let out in case of jail overcrowding. In addition, this crime-severity rating would remain with the felon for the rest of his life. If a felon was released from prison and committed another crime, a new rating score would be ADDED TO his existing score. Of course, the high-scoring felons would be murderers sentenced to life ... or possibly, repeat offenders whose "added on" severity ratings surpass those of the murderers.

    Secondly, let's assume a prison system conforms to the percentage of available space ... say, 2,000 beds. As long as that system's population remained under that number, murderers would escape death in their prison environment. But, let's say that 1,999 beds are full and an additional 2 felons are sentenced to prison. Guess what ... the prison is overcrowded. And, to keep it overcrowded would not only be cruel and unusual punishment for the remaining prison population but cruel and unusual punishment for the taxpayer. So, the warden takes a look at the 2,001 crime-severity ratings of his prison population ... and the person with the highest rating is taken immediately from his cell to the death chamber. Bye-bye.

    The reason I like this solution so much is because of the nature of murder. Most victims don't have much notice from their murderer that they're about to be killed. It seems only fair that the criminal should get similar short-notice that they're headed for the death chamber. There's a certain poetic justice to it.

    By the way, I do understand the objections to capital punishment. The first one is the possibility of executing an innocent person. However, that objection is based on a false rationale. In the first place, sophisticated methods such as DNA testing now exist to positively identify a guilty party. The axiom, "I'd rather let 10 murderers go free than execute one innocent man" has always bothered me since it doesn't take into consideration the feelings of potential victims of repeat offenders. We are human beings. That means we are flawed and will always be flawed. But, I don't think we should allow our humanity to stand in the way of our own self-protection. Mistakes would be unfortunate. But, they would also be human.

    Another objection from anti-capital-punishment forces is economic ... that the death penalty costs more to enforce than life imprisonment. That's true ... but only because the costly obstacles between a criminal and death were put in place by those very same anti-capital-punishment forces. The solution is to streamline the process. Because murder is such a heinous crime, court systems should mandate that murder trials be put at the "top of the docket" ... even if it means bumping other trials to later dates. The suspect should be given a "blank check" to hire "any" attorney he wishes (at the court's expense) to handle his case ... that is, any attorney willing to take his case. Beyond that trial, there should only be two appeals allowed (again, put at the "top of the docket") -- the first being a State Supreme Court, the second being the United States Supreme Court ... both of which would have the option to refuse to hear the appeal if the attorney could not convince them the case was worthy of appeal. This "trial, appeal, appeal" trio of events should be "concurrent" events ... held within days or weeks of each other, not years apart. And, once the process is complete (and if the suspect's guilt is sustained), the murderer goes to prison for the rest of his life (however long it might be, no one can say).

    To Thine Own Self Be True
    Saturday, March 6, 2004 - Years ago, I remember watching a Donahue Show discussing gun control. As usual for such shows, a vocal proponent was put face to face with a vocal opponent. The opponent had an interesting story to tell. His home had been burglarized. And, during the burglary, the intruder was interrupted by the opponent's son ... and the burglar killed his son. The opponent had a wife and two other children. He said he'd since bought a gun and wouldn't hesitate for a second to kill any future intruder. The gun-control proponent chided him with, "Since when do two wrongs make a right?"

    I swear, I wanted to reach right through my TV screen and throttle that guy ... yelling into his face, "Since when did self-defense become a wrong thing to do?"

    The sad truth is this. If someone breaks into your home, you have no way of knowing what's going on in their mind. Are they willing to kill you? Are they so hopped up on dope they don't know or care what they do? The choice any homeowner is left with is simple. Are you willing to bet your life and the lives of your loved ones on the chance that an intruder's intentions are non-violent? I'm not. However, there are other sad truths ... among them, that wounding an intruder and causing a disability might guarantee you lawsuits from the intruder's family (or the intruder himself) to help pay for recuperative therapy. Don't laugh. It happens all too often. That leaves only one option. If an intruder comes into your home, you must kill the intruder.

    Therein lies the quandry. Most states do allow for self-defense only if it can be proven you applied "equal and opposite force." In short, to use a deadly weapon to kill an intruder, you'd better hope that the intruder is carrying a deadly weapon. Otherwise, you might find yourself on the wrong side of the law. The solution?

    Years ago when I worked for the V.A. (now called Department of Veteran Affairs), one of my co-workers was a reservist in the National Guard. One of his fellow reservists was a Gresham police officer ... who shared the following scenario. Disclaimer - I am not suggesting that you should use this method, I'm only mentioning it in passing:
    Buy a handgun powerful enough to kill (ie., .357 magnum, .44 magnum) for self-defense. Take an NRA-approved gun safety course to learn proper use and care of the weapon. Practice with it regularly at a shooting range where certified weapon instructors monitor you, chart your performance, and offer additional training. Go to any department store and buy a cheap pocketknife that's enclosed in plastic-wrap. Take it home, place it in a dresser drawer and just remember that it's there. If an intruder comes into your home, get the intruder to face you (risky but necessary) and kill the intruder. Aim for the head and shoot more than once if necessary, making certain at least one bullet shoots the brain. Run to your dresser drawer and retrieve the wrapped pocketknife. With tissue paper, remove the knife from the wrapper, making certain you don't get your fingerprints on the knife, and open the knife-blade. Place the knife in the intruder's right hand and close the hand's grip around the knife, then flailing the hand back to the floor. Note ... it doesn't matter whether or not the intruder is right-handed. The right hand is just the logical place it would be expected and, in knife-fighting, changing hands is not uncommon. Take the tissue paper and plastic wrap, crumple or tear them up, and flush them down your toilet. Then and ONLY then, call 911. When the police arrive, tell them that the intruder faced you, held a knife, and began to approach you with it. Because a knife is considered a deadly weapon, using your gun would be considered "equal and opposite force" and the whole matter would be written up as self-defense. Case closed.
    By the way, Joel Rosenberg is not only an award-winning author of fantasy novels, he's also been in a very harrowing situation similar in some ways to the gun-control opponent. Read his 1991 essay titled:

    The Burglar, the Butcher Knife, and the Gun

    Getting To The Point
    Friday, March 5, 2004 - Recently a friend sent me the following forwarded email:
    Something to think about ... This is very good to know ... Be aware of new car-jacking scheme. Read, then forward this email - Imagine: You walk across the parking lot, unlock your car and get inside. Then you lock all your doors, start the engine and shift into REVERSE (Habit!). You look into the rear-view window to back out of your parking space and you notice a piece of paper, some sort of advertisement stuck to your rear window. So, you shift into PARK, unlock your doors and jump out of your vehicle to remove that paper (or whatever it is) that is obstructing your view... when you reach the back of your car, that is when the car-jackers jump out of nowhere ... jump into your car and take off ... your engine was running, your purse is in the car, and they practically mow you down as they speed off in your car.

    BE AWARE OF THIS NEW SCHEME --- Just drive away and remove the paper that is stuck to your window later ... and be thankful that you read this email and that you forwarded it to your friends!
    Sounds like a typical urban legend, right? Well according to the
    Snopes.com urban legend website, this scenario (while no known incidents have been reported) is entirely possible. However, there are now a number of anti-carjacking scenarios available from auto-alarm companies.

    For example - imagine someone forces you out of your car at gunpoint. You let them drive about a block away from you and, from your pocket/purse, you pull out an electronic device (about the size of a Genie garage-door opener). You press the button and an electronic signal is transmitted to your car that "cuts" the ignition - like turning off your car keys. The car stops, the carjacker flees (sometimes with an alarm sounding after the ignition is cut), and you get your car back (after the cops dust for prints). A more sophisticated version of this system puts a small/hidden camera above your rearview mirror. At the same time the ignition is cut, the camera snaps 2 quick photos of whoever's sitting in the driver's seat. The car stops, the carjacker flees, you get your car back (after the cops dust for prints) AND you can give the cops your camera. They develop the film and have two photos of the culprit to use in their investigation.

    When I got out of the Navy in 1973, my first civilian job was with Action Alarm & Signal Company. Even back then, some of the techs were toying with such an idea ... that the first thing a car alarm would do if it went off was cut the ignition (in essence, stopping the theft before it could occur). I was a dispatcher at the time and shared my own rather evil variant to this (grin). And, it would be even better as a variant to the anti-carjack system I described:
    The carjacker takes off with your car. About a block away, you press the button on the remote device. It cuts the ignition, takes 2 photos of the person in the driver's seat, AND activates a sharp/pointy telescoping hydraulic-powered stainless-steel spike under the seat ... which, in a split second, would extend itself one foot upward (grin) ... impaling the carjacker in a very sensitive area. You'd get your car back (though you'd probably have to replace the seat cushion) AND the carjacker would only have enough energy to flee into the arms of an ambulance driver.
    Disclaimer - Using the anti-carjack method described in the paragraph above will, in all likelihood, put YOU behind bars. While the police would certainly take some pleasure in the scenario, it would of course violate the "civil rights" of the culprit ... who would be entitled to his day in court without having to wear a diaper (grin).

    The Truth Divided By 2
    Friday, February 27, 2004 - I do not hate buses. They serve a valuable purpose and are environmentally a good thing. But, I detest half-truths and B.S., regardless of their source.

    I've seen this before but didn't say anything about it ... but when I saw it yesterday while attempting to make it to an afternoon meeting (and running late), I decided to make note of it here. My local-area mass-transit agency, TriMet, has put a big bumper sticker on the rear fender of most buses. It reads:

    249 Cars Are At Home Because I'm On The Road


    My mind began thinking of a counter-bumper-sticker to place directly beneath it, reading:

    ...and another 500 are forming a line behind me because I stop every 4 blocks to let out passengers or pick them up - with my tail-end stuck out in the traffic lane so cars can't safely pass me.


    But getting back to the topic, I'd really like to know where they came up with that "249" figure. I suspect it's the result of voodoo mathematics since I can only think of a few reasons for anyone to use a bus:
    (1) - People who have no access to an automobile.

    (2) - People fearful of not finding a quick and affordable parking place at their destination.

    (3) - People who place a higher priority on being politically correct in the environmental arena than they do on spending quality time with their friends and family. Let's face it, buses travel the same streets as cars. The only difference is that cars don't have to stop every 4 or 5 blocks to pick up or let off passengers - lengthening commute time and shortening personal time.

    (4) - People who have no problem with saving money on gasoline by riding a heavily subsidized bus system - in essence, making their tax-paying neighbors pay for part of their commute costs through taxes.
    Now, the people who fall into category 1 are not leaving their cars at home because buses are on the road. The category 1 people either don't have a car at home to begin with because they don't own one, it's in the shop, they're too intoxicated to drive, or they're a tourist without a rental car. And, people in categories 2 and 3 would have left their cars home anyway - not out of any overwhelming desire to ride buses but only because they're there. The category 4 people? Well, if ridership was limited to indigent or low-income people, the subsidies would make sense from a purely humanitarian point of view - a view I'd agree with. But how many bus systems do you know of who put such limitations on ridership?

    Disclaimer - I'm a nice person (grin). If, later on, you read an article about someone placing such an add-on bumper-sticker on city buses in Portland, Oregon, rest assured it wasn't me. It will obviously be someone else who read this Blog.

    P.S. - A "Mea Culpa" on bumper stickers. When I left the Navy, my attitude was such that I had no use for any military branches of service. And quite soon after my discharge, I began noticing one pro-military bumper sticker that rubbed me the wrong way. At the time, I was a subscriber to National Lampoon magazine. And, one of their advertisers was a printer specializing in bumper stickers whose ad read, "We Print ANYTHING!"

    So, I ordered 50 bumper stickers (the minimum order) ... all with a red background ... all with gold lettering, reading:
    ... to replace the ones we've fucked up over the years.
    When I received them, I began stalking parking lots in shopping malls and such, looking for the pro-military bumper sticker that offended me. And when I found one, I'd make certain no one was watching me and place MY bumper sticker directly beneath it. So (grin), what did the offending pro-military bumper sticker say???
    The Marines ... We're Looking For A Few Good Men
    Every one of those bumper stickers found a home ... and I was never caught putting them up.

    Finding Humor in BUNGA
    Saturday, February 21, 2004 - I won't tell you who I work for since what I'm about to say may be considered as "putting my employer in a bad light" - which may be grounds for discipline. Let's just say I work for an employer that has, as many employers have, changed due to automation. For example, 30 years ago, if you worked in a convenience store, you were hired to stand behind a counter and ring up sales as they came. And if you liked that job and aspired to that job, everything was copasetic. But later, such clerks were given additional jobs ... renting videotapes, setting up gas pumps, cooking and selling burritos, Jo-Jos, etc., etc., etc., because they (ahem) had so much free time on their hands. 30 years ago, a productive employee was one who did their job. Today, a productive employee is one whose employer keeps busy by piling multiple functions on their shoulders - giving them barely enough time to pick their nose. And, in addition to this, the functions you were hired to perform have largely been taken over by automated devices.

    My job is no different and, possibly, neither is yours. Imagine setting your sights on an engineering career. You train for the career, pass tests to convince an employer you'd do good in the career, spend a few years doing it ... and then ... your boss comes to you. He/she says, "Well, Mr. Engineer, your job is now done by machines. But, out of the kindness of my heart since I don't want to lay you off, I'll give you a choice. Which would you prefer to do ... clean out the toilets or sweep the floors?"

    A few weeks ago, my employer decided to carry automation further into the plant where I work. Consequently, everyone in my work section will have their jobs "excessed." But, out of the kindness of their hearts since they can't lay us off (union protection), they're going to give us all the choice of other jobs ... every one of which is identical to the other jobs ... and every one of which is mundane, menial, and boring. Because this "choice" is regulated by a labor union, jobs must be bid on. But, if you don't bid for any jobs, you'll still get one ... it'll just be assigned to you rather than you picking it. Bottom line? It'll be the same job anyway (grin).

    Last week, the bidding sheets were handed out. One of my co-workers was feverishly working on his when I went up to him and told him I was thinking of "not bidding." He was shocked. He started going on and on about how important it was to bid when I interrupted him with the following joke.

    Two explorers, one American and one British, were going down the Amazon River when they noticed a green area off to one side. They paddled their boat to shore to take a look. Trees had been removed from the area and it was covered in finely manicured grass. And, arranged on the grass in an intricate design were nuggets of gold! They both started picking up the nuggets and putting them in their packs when they were surprised by a native tribe ... and the tribesmen grabbed them and took them to their village to see the Chief.

    "You have defiled our most sacred burial ground," said the Chief. "And, you must pay the price. You each have a choice to make ... will it be DEATH or will it be BUNGA?" Then, the Chief walked over to the American explorer and said, "Which do you choose?"

    Knowing that DEATH sounded pretty final, he replied, "I'll choose BUNGA."

    The American explorer was immediately siezed by the tribesmen, stripped, and tied to a tree. Then, every tribesman took their turn having anal intercourse with the explorer. When they were done, they untied him ... and he staggered off into the jungle, bloody and near death. Then, the Chief walked over to the British explorer and said, "Which do you choose?"

    Seeing the indignity suffered by the American, the British explorer decided he'd show those savages that Brits were made of sterner stuff. He put his face inches away from the Chief's face and said in a loud, steady voice, "I choose DEATH!"

    Tribesmen began to murmur among themselves. No one caught previously had ever chosen DEATH before. The Chief motioned them all into silence and said, "Very well, then, very well ... let it be DEATH ... by BUNGA!"

    Moral of the story? It didn't matter what the explorers chose. The end result would be BUNGA. Likewise, it doesn't matter what job my co-workers choose ... or even if they make no choice at all. The end result will still be BUNGA ... being forced to take a job they know they won't like in order to protect their tenure with the company.

    The Libertarian Luncheon (or why there'll never be a Libertarian President)
    Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - Originally written in 1994, I dredge this short-short article out of the cobwebs every Presidential election year. Some may think it simplistic or downright wrong. But, this attempt at political humor comes very close to what I believe to be the truth - from my moderate viewpoint. The article begins now:

    Once upon an election year, patrons crowded a posh Washington, D.C. restaurant for lunch. A man entered the restaurant and called for their attention.

    "Fellow citizens," the man began. "I'm the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. And, if you vote for me, I'll pay for your lunches."

    Patrons gave the Democratic candidate a round of applause. But, unknown to the patrons, the Democrat planned on paying for the lunches by instituting a post-election tax. The tax would not only pay for the lunches but would pay the salary of a bureaucrat he'd hire to collect the tax. Then, another man entered the restaurant and called for their attention.

    "Fellow citizens," the man began. "I'm the Republican candidate for President of the United States. And, if you vote for me, I'll not only pay for your lunches - I'll promise that you'll never EVER have to pay me back."

    Patrons gave the Republican candidate a standing ovation. But, unknown to the patrons, the Republican planned on paying for the lunches by charging them on the VISAs and MasterCards of their children and grandchildren. Then, another man entered the restaurant and called for their attention.

    "Fellow citizens," the man began. "I'm the Libertarian candidate for President of the United States. And, if you vote for me, I'll pay for my lunch and you can pay for yours."

    Patrons booed and hissed. And, therein lies the reason why there'll never be a Libertarian President. Libertarians consistently tell the American electorate the one truth they hate to hear and refuse to accept - that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

    (Post-article-addendum) - There's another more important reason why there'll never be a Libertarian President. Some ideas from the Libertarian Party are actually quite astute. But, whenever these astute ideas begin to receive "popular" support from the electorate, the Democrats and Republicans glom on to them ... as if the ideas were theirs in the first place. This makes the Libertarian Party an important source for a wellspring of new and forward-thinking ideas ... but at the same time, guarantees them the status of victim in a neverending cycle of "idea theft."

    Internet Addiction - Or Something More Sinister?
    Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - The other day, I was reminded of an op-ed I had published in U.S. News and World Report magazine a couple of years ago. A female psychologist had written an article dealing with "Internet Addiction" in a prior issue and I took some umbrage with it. My op-ed suggested that while Internet addiction really exists (just as other forms of obsessive-compulsive disorder exist), it might be dangerous to jump at the diagnosis too quickly. Since most articles on Internet addiction seemed to have been written by women (and most of the sufferers discussed were men), I postulated that there may be a more sinister disease process at work. This was my rationale.

    Many years ago, before radio and television, many men enjoyed going fishing by themselves. Women left at home began to refer to themselves as "fishing widows." Later, with the advent of radio and TV, many men enjoyed listening to or watching sporting events by themselves. Then, women began to refer to themselves as "football widows," "baseball widows," "basketball widows," etc., etc. Then came the Internet ... and many men enjoyed surfing the web by themselves. However, this time, women did not accept their widowhood gracefully. They began to suggest that their men were sick ... that they were addicted to the net and in need of treatment and a cure.

    Therefore, not all men labeled as "net addicts" suffer from the condition. Instead, they suffer from a disease I refer to as "widow's syndrome" ... a disease whereby women lay guilt trips on their men for the crime of finding pleasure outside their company.

    Ahem, ahem, ahem.

    (By the way, a female editor bought that op-ed, hehehehe.)

    Celebs - Do They REALLY Hate The Paparazzi?
    Monday, February 16, 2004 - One of my favorite cable TV channels is American Movie Classics. The AMC Channel consistently shows the best of what Hollywood had to offer before blatant sex and violence became standard operating procedure. But, I also see the channel as educational in one sense. Every now and then, they have a program called the Hollywood Hunt Club - a reality show of sorts along the same lines as Cops. In a nutshell, you see paparazzi (celebrity photographers) pursuing their quarry and capturing them on film whenever and wherever they can.

    If you believe standard Hollywood thinking on the topic, you might think that the paparazzi are some of the most hated people in town. Their business is to invade the public privacy of celebrity targets and take as many photos of them as possible without being caught in the act of doing so (and possibly even assaulted for doing so). However, after watching a number of these shows, I'm developing a different attitude about the paparazzi as well as their celebrity targets.

    From time to time, when they're caught in the act of snapping a photo, I do admit to seeing indignation from the celebrities. But, it doesn't appear to be righteous indignation. And, I've never seen a celebrity get physical with any of them. So, either celebrities don't really hate them as much as they make out to hate them. Or, they haven't done anything substantive to thwart the paparazzi in pursuing their profession. If in fact they hate them, that seems odd since I can think of a number of creative anti-paparazzi tactics they could employ.

    Ask yourself this question. Who is more likely to have more financial clout, a group of indignant celebrities or a group of persistent paparazzi? It would be a simple matter for indignant celebs to organize themselves into a group. Let's call that group C.L.A.P. (Celebrity's League Against Paparazzi). The group's purpose? To hire private investigators to follow paparazzi around, dig up dirt on them, take photos of them in compromising situations, and publish their findings in newsletters passed out freely in the neighborhoods where paparazzi live. For example, such a newsletter could say, "Did you know your neighbor living at 222 Main Street invites 20-somethings over to his house while his wife is at work (with a photospread)?" And for the most annoying paparazzi, the group could rent billboard space in the neighborhoods where they live and put such things up on them in bold print for all to see. Think about it. How can paparazzi complain about stars doing to them what they do to the stars for a living? It would be a teensy bit hypocritical, don't you think?

    But, there's even a less invasive way to battle many of them ... something proven demonstrably just by watching a few of the Hollywood Hunt Club shows. C.L.A.P. merely needs to hire private investigators to follow the paparazzi around and complain officially about their driving. Really ... these people are dangerous drivers and usually drive without a seatbelt fastened. The more a paparazzi gets complainants filing sworn statements about bad driving, the more citations they'll get ... and the more citations they get, the more their auto insurance will go up. And, if they get enough citations on their driving records, they'll lose their insurance and possibly even their licenses to drive - in essence, putting them out of business.

    Mind you, this assumes that celebs hate the paparazzi ... an assumption that might not hold much water. The truth that appears to emerge here is that celebs only say they hate the paparazzi - perhaps out of conformity prejudice among other celebs. The obvious retaliatory vehicle against them is not being used. Either indignant celebs are too stupid to recognize that option (doubtful) or their indignation is just a sham.

    Looking For Love (In All The Wrong Places)
    Saturday, February 14, 2004 - Since it's Valentine's Day, I figured "What better way to inaugurate my Blog than to talk about love." One of the more popular additions to the web came with the advent of online introduction services - places where singles could meet like-minded singles for purposes ranging from simple friendship to long-term relationships. There are a number of them out there, each with their own plusses and minuses (depending upon varied points of view). And, I just wanted to comment on one of them -
    eHarmony.com.

    Unless you've been living in a cave (with no radio or television access), it's impossible to have missed their ads. If you need to refresh your memory, click here for their "tour" (Flash required). Bottom line? You take a free 500-question personality profile survey and are allowed to peruse potential matches. But, once you get to the point of "contacting" any of them, you must become a paying customer - to the tune of $49.95 monthly with staggered rates up to $249.95 yearly.

    Now ... it's obvious their program works for some people. But recently on a television news-byte, I heard that a large number of people are not accepted by eHarmony.com because, in the words of eHarmony's founder, "they need to work on themselves" first. However, the news-byte didn't mention (and there's probably no way to track this) how many people started to fill out the personality profile but couldn't finish it. Reason?

    This is not a condemnation of eHarmony.com alone since what I'm about to say applies to all surveys that allow a response ONLY if that response conforms to a finite number of "multiple choice" answers. I'm one of those people who started the survey but could not finish it. For example, when a question was asked and 5 multiple choice answers were provided, I could sometimes think of several more possible answers (of which mine was one). In other words, in order to answer their survey within the confines of their provided answers, I'd have to "lie" about myself. This does not mean I have to "work on myself" to become an eHarmony.com client. It means that eHarmony.com needs to admit that their pat-answers to survey questions do not encompass the full range of "truthful" answers possible ... and allow potential clients to click an "other" block with the ability to expound on their reasons for choosing an alternative answer. Anything else would be a "supermarket" approach to the business of personal relationships, not a truly honest approach that takes the larger human picture in its proper focus.

    Unfortunately, I believe that the "supermarket" approach to the business of personal relationships is exactly what eHarmony.com is seeking to establish ... a "turnkey" website with little if any human intervention in a predetermined automated scenario of selection criteria. So, if you're looking for a relationship with a computer, eHarmony.com might be for you. But if you're looking for a relationship with a human being, it's probably better to patronize a qualified relationship specialist (ie., a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a marriage counselor, etc.), one allowing you to "press flesh" and "talk straight" about yourself and the desired object of your affections.

    Think about that for a second (grin). Who says you can only seek the services of a relationship counselor after you've made a commitment and only when that relationship is in trouble? I'm no expert in the field but suspect that if people would visit a relationship professional first, there'd probably be fewer unhappy marriages.

    One other thing to keep in mind about eHarmony.com and other similar services. Their boasts of marriages among clients are prematurely positive. Consider this. I bought a 2000 model Plymouth Voyager. Less than a month from the day I bought it, I got a "customer satisfaction survey" in the mail. I promptly threw it away. But, they continued to pepper me with those surveys until I'd finally had enough and sent them a scathing letter back. To send such a survey out so soon after the purchase was, in my opinion, an attempt to capitalize on new-car purchase "euphoria" as a means to mislead future customers about their auto's true worth. I told them I'd be happy to fill out the survey ... in five years, when the car was paid off and was 2 years beyond its warranty. Mileage is the measure of the true worth of auto ownership, not how well it performs at the moment you drive it off the lot. Likewise, it isn't how many marriages eHarmony.com arranges that really matters. It's how long those marriages last that matters. I challenge you to go on the web and find any matchmaker site with a list of couples who will state unequivocally that they've been happily married for at least five years. If you find such a site (grin), do let me know.