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


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

All Blog entries below are © 2005, J. Alec West.
(click here to read 2004 blog comments)
Quick links to the "blogs" below:
  • Bad Advice For Instant Millionaires
  • Organized Labor ... or Organized Victimization?
  • Monkey Trial III - Will There Be a IV?
  • A Moderate Option for Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
  • "Titor"ing On The Edge
  • Monkey Trial II, and TV Sitcoms
  • The Monkey's On Trial Again
  • Vonage.com - Piled Higher And Deeper
  • Rewarding Disrespect, And the Danger of Doing So
  • The Wrong Issue
  • One Unforgivable Omission
  • The "DUH" Factor - Saying Stupid Things
  • When What You See Is NOT What You Get
  • It's A Wild World


  • Bad Advice For Instant Millionaires
    Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - This blog article has had a change of address (grin). I made so many modifications to it after it was written that I decided to give it its own singular presence on the web. The title has changed to "Lucky You - Advice To Instant Lottery Millionaires." Some parts of the original article were edited out, new parts were added in, and I tossed in a few graphics to prevent people from "falling asleep" when they visit text-only places. To read the article, click on the link below:

    http://LuckyYou.atspace.com

    If for some reason the site goes down for an extended period of time, let me know and I'll mirror it here.


    Organized Labor ... or Organized Victimization?
    Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - WCBS-TV in New York asked for opinions on the Transit Workers Union strike that has crippled the city. This is what I sent them.
    Dear WCBS-TV:

    My father was a lifelong member of the Aerospace Workers Union. My stepfather was a 20+ year member of the International Woodworkers of America. And I was a 20-year member of an AFL-CIO affiliate union. We were all proud of our union affiliations. And so, I have only one thing to say to the 33,700 striking transit workers in New York:

    BLOOMBERG SHOULD FIRE THE LOT OF YOU!!!

    In the early days of unionism, strikes made sense. But nowadays, more lawyers specialize in arbitration than God has angels. And while I firmly believe in employee representation by organized labor entities, there is no more reason in the modern world to have a strike. Strikes by private and public employees should be made illegal ... period. Instead, breakdowns in talks between management and labor entities should "quickly" trigger binding arbitration. Each side presents their best evidence to an arbitrator, the arbitrator makes a decision, and THAT'S THAT! End of discussion!

    Too much "collateral damage" occurs in strikes and this is just plain WRONG! Remember the decade-old baseball strike? Highly paid players vs. highly paid owners and managers fought themselves tooth and nail. And in the end, they all survived financially. But a large number of umpires and concession operators were forced into bankruptcy - losing their entire life's savings because of somebody else's beef. And that's just one example. The victims of strike-related economic fallout are largely unsung victims and EVERY protracted or long-term strike creates those victims.

    My advice to Bloomberg? In the case of the TWU, the strike was clearly in violation of the law. Give all of those 33,700 workers their pink slips for violating public law, deny them unemployment benefits, hire immediate replacements and give the police special powers to deal with "ex-employees" who attempt to interfere with the smooth operation of metropolitan transit. Reagan did it to the striking Air Traffic Controllers in 1981 ... and this 2005 strike of public employees is no different.



    Monkey Trial III - Will There Be a IV?
    Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - The recent judgement against teaching Intelligent Design in schools seems less like a ruling and more like a "dare" to proponents to take it to the Supreme Court (the next and last stop, if they do). Here is an excerpt of the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge, John E. Jones III:
    "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause."

    "Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

    "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

    "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

    "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

    "After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

    "The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."

    And so it goes...

    A Moderate Option for Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
    Saturday, December 10, 2005 - I'll say it upfront - I support the use of capital punishment in capital murder cases. And, I think the current focus of the media on matters unrelated to the charges against Williams is a bit silly. Sure, Williams was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. But so was Benito Mussolini (1935) ... and Josef Stalin was nominated for it twice (1945 & 1948). And why should the media be concerned if letting Williams die might cause riots in South L.A.? Frankly, if that was the only worry, I think Schwarzenegger should mobilize the National Guard and threaten "shoot-on-sight" orders under martial-law if riots break out ... in essence, giving any potential rioter the "Dirty Harry" choice of, "Go ahead, make my day."

    The true focus of this situation should be on the murders and who committed them. I've been a juror on a murder case myself. And, I've seen a lot of publicity about murder cases over the years as well. And the one thing that stands out is that, in all but a few cases, most murderers are not only unrepentent, they're a bit "cocky" about their crimes. This is where the Williams case differs.

    Williams, though convicted on what the chief prosecutor says is "irrefutable" evidence, has always maintained his innocence. And it's well to remember that this chief prosecutor has had two other "irrefutable" cases overturned by the California State Supreme Court. I'm not saying Williams is innocent or even telling the truth. I'm just saying this prosecutor's sheets aren't all that clean, either. So, in this particular case, I think Governor Schwarzenegger should take a moderate approach to the current dilemma.

    Stanley 'Tookie' Williams is set to die this coming Tuesday at 12:01 AM. And if you believe what's being reported in the popular media, Schwarzenegger has only two options to choose from - DEATH or CLEMENCY. That is absolutely not true. As Governor, Schwarzenegger has several options to choose from - including a "moderate" option I would like him to go for. First, Schwarzenegger should insist that he supports the criminal court system and honors the jury's decision in this case. Secondly, he should also recognize that the Supreme Court of California has yet to hear the case. True, he can't "order" them to hear the case. But, he can order a stay of execution (say, for 3 years) allowing the defense team ample time to mount one final attempt to get the Supreme Court to hear the case. This would keep Williams alive but still on death-row. It would also put the onus for Williams' life back on the defense team's shoulders (where it belongs). And politically speaking, it would diffuse the issue until after the next gubernatorial election.

    Sometimes, the best political decision is the decision to postpone the decision (grin). This is one of those times.


    "Titor"ing On The Edge
    Monday, December 5, 2005 - There are things in life that defy description or explanation. And, that doesn't mean these things don't "really" happen. I have never seen a ghost. But, I don't dismiss the possibility that ghosts could exist. And, I've never seen an alien spacecraft (to my knowledge). But likewise, I can't dismiss the possibility that alien spacecraft could exist. In short, I try to keep an open mind on such things.

    Back in 1999 (if reports are accurate), a man began posting in several online forums ... eventually introducting himself as John Titor. He claimed that he was a time traveler from the year 2036. Later, a man named Oliver Williams began collecting these posts and other information supplied by Titor, posting them to a JohnTitor.com website. The postings were finite, though, since Titor decided to return to his own time sometime around April, 2001. Even so, Williams has turned Titor's brief moment in our timeline into a cottage industry. A book is available for purchase ... and Williams makes an occasional appearance on the Coast-To-Coast-AM radio show, hosted largely by George Noory (but made famous by Art Bell). And while Art was still maintaining an online bulletin board, Titor himself even posted to it between January and March of 2001. If you have Acrobat Reader 5.0 or better installed on your system, you can read these postings here.

    The website and bulletin board postings make for interesting reading. And who knows, perhaps time travel is possible. But, I have a bone to pick with Mr. Titor and have tried to contact Williams each time he makes an appearance on Coast ... to ask a question that perplexes me.

    First, consider this. In 1986, nuclear reactor #4 at Chernobyl malfunctioned. A steam cloud escaped creating a "dead zone" around the site ... a zone no human being can safely inhabit for roughly 600 years (see this website for info). And mind you, this was "just" a steam cloud.

    Now, back to Titor. One of his claims is that, in the year 2015, Russia will attack the U.S. with multiple nuclear warheads targeting our major cities. He also claims that in 2036, 21 years after the attack, the U.S. capital will be in Omaha, Nebraska. Uhh ... excuse me. Omaha is not only a major city, it's also considered a "primary" target because:

  • (A) Stragetic Air Command (SAC) headquarters is in Omaha, and...
  • (B) Minuteman missile silos ring the area.

    In short, Omaha would not be a "mere" target ... it would probably be THE target area for several of those incoming missiles. Click here and scroll down to "Nebraska" for that info.

    So ... Titor claims a region that will likely endure numerous multi-megaton nuclear strikes in 2015 will be "habitable" again in 2036 when scientists can't even clean up after a radioactive steam-leak for 600 years. Ahem.

    Still, I suppose that between now and 2015, our scientists could discover some kind of "magic" cleaning solution to a nuclear holocaust (or the Russians could invent a "cleaner" type of plutonium). And I suppose a city turned into a flat burning wasteland could be rebuilt in 21 years. It's all within the realm of "possibility." But, hehe, I must admit that hearing some kind of definitive explanation from Williams would have to be forthcoming before I'd chime into those possibilities. Until then, it sounds like a lot of hoo-hah (grin).

    P.S. Many people who have followed this unusual story believe that "John Titor" is a pseudonym. I'd go one step further. I believe "John Titor" AND "Oliver Williams" are both pseudonyms and speculate that the real identity of this so-called time traveler belongs to two people - David & Chris Bradley. The Bradley duo runs a homebrew publishing business out of their home in rural Tennessee and operate two websites - InstantPublisher.com and Cookbooks.com. Their company name is Fundcraft and they primarily publish (you guessed it) cookbooks. But, they're also a "vanity" publisher, a publisher who will publish ANYTHING if you pay them to do it. And one of their books is a book by Titor about his time travel exploits ... a book that coincidentally came out during the same year that the JohnTitor.com website went online.

    It makes sense to me. Nowadays, it's incredibly easy to find a wealth of free recipes online. No doubt, this has caused the cookbook business to suffer substantially. And, what better way to prop up a faltering homebrew publishing business than by introducing a little "speculative fiction" into the mix. Food for thought...


    Monkey Trial II, and TV Sitcoms
    Saturday, November 12, 2005 - The trial in Harrisburg regarding the Dover PA School Board decision is over ... and the judge says a decision is forthcoming (a decision that will probably be appealed by either side). But, it may be a moot issue in Dover. During a recent election, Dover voters kicked out eight board members and replaced them with people who are opposed to teaching intelligent design theory as if it was science. But, a new trial is coming ... not necessarily in court, but again, in the ballot box.

    The Kansas Board of Education has voted 6-4 to allow for I.D. teaching. But less than a month after that decision, three candidates (source: Washington Post) opposed to I.D. teaching have thrown their hats in the ring for the 2006 election to the board. The decision to make Kansas a "pro-I.D." state was a "board" decision, not a decision coming about via a direct vote of Kansas citizens. So, it would be unfair to categorize Kansas as a "pro-I.D." state. But likewise, the decision by three "anti-I.D." candidates to run doesn't mean Kansas is an "anti-I.D." state either. It merely means that the issue has politicized Kansas ... and the eventual outcome of this issue will be decided by Kansas voters in less than a year.

    The two paragraphs above were merely meant to update my previous post. Now, to a wholly different issue.

    I love watching a good comedy film. But, I don't like or watch TV sitcoms. Why? First, there is a fundamental difference between comedy films and most comedy programs meant for TV consumption. While watching a comedy film, the only sensory input you have other than the film is from members of the audience around you (be it at a theater or in your living room). By and large, though, the only time you laugh is if something in the film strikes you as "funny." But TV programming gurus aren't willing to give you that luxury of personal choice. They feel the need to enlighten you as to the proper moment to laugh ... and they do it by employing "laugh tracks." And nowadays, those laugh tracks have become both digital and sophisticated ... and are no better than "self-advertising" (subliminal) of the show being watched.

    Click HERE to see why the industry uses them, straight from an industry insider.

    In essense, I feel insulted by such programs. If humor cannot stand on its own two feet without subliminal incentives, it's quite possible it isn't funny at all. Or, as insider Robin Cartwright alluded to in his article linked to above, quote, "Substituting a laugh track for a live audience simplifies matters, the obvious drawback being that the lack of feedback lets TV execs kid themselves that a show is funny when it's not." But Cartwright avoids the issue of feedback itself. I'm single ... and generally watch films alone in my home. If something is funny to me, I'll laugh. If something is not funny, I won't. And, that's the way I'd like things to stay.

    P.S. At the risk of sounding hypocritical, however, I have nothing against "mood music" in films or TV shows. But, the reason I feel this way is because mood music is an internal production matter. Laugh tracks, on the other hand, imply an "external response" to an "internal production" ... a response that could be faked easily and not representative of a genuine response. Laugh tracks, therefore, cross the line between "production" and "response" ... and the only responder I'm interested in hearing is me (grin).


    The Monkey's On Trial Again
    Monday, September 26, 2005 - What with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita taking up the media limelight, a lesser covered story with profound implications is getting a back seat. In a deja-vu of the Scopes "Monkey" trial of the 1920s, the teaching of creationism in public schools is headed for the courts. But this time, it's wearing a dressier suit of clothes. No longer are proponents of this line of instruction referring to it as creationism. Instead, they're donning the "Intelligent Design" robes.

    First, let me say that I'm a Deist. And as such, I believe in intelligent design. This has nothing to do with science. But, it has nothing to do with faith, either. It's merely a "gut feeling" on my part that the complex nature of the universe can only be traced to a guiding hand or guiding force ... either of which imply intelligence behind them. But, I could be wrong and I freely admit it. It's just how I feel. But having said that, I'm firmly against teaching intelligent design theories in public school and this is why.

    As far back as I can remember, Darwinism has always been taught as a theory. And starting with the teachers in front of students and going all the way back to Darwin himself, no one has ever suggested to me (or anyone else) that it's anything more than a theory. In fact, within Darwin's own writings, you'll find a self-confession that his theory might be wrong.

    I like that about science ... that ideas are always theories subject to revision. And because of that, I want science taught in schools since it pre-supposes open-mindedness on the part of students and does not imply that theories should be accepted without question or scrutiny. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Intellegent Design theory. And for proof of that, you needn't go any further than the textbook suggested for student reading by I.D. proponents themselves - "Of Pandas and People."

    If we timeshift back to 1987, there was another book titled "Biology and Origins." Throughout its pages, creationist dogma and nomenclature were evident. It was very clear that the authors of this book were fundamentalist Christians who were certain they had the answer to "how life began." Mind you, I mean certain, not theoretical. Unfortunately, the book didn't sell well except to religious schools and religious home-schoolers. Then, someone somewhere came up with an idea. They went through "Biology and Origins" and globally replaced all creationist references and nomenclature with references and nomenclature consistent with I.D. theory. And then, they retitled the book. Guess what the new title was? You guessed it - "Of Pandas and People."

    So, unlike Darwinism, I.D. theory can be traced directly back to fundamentalist Christianity. The book may be prettied up and appear non-sectarian. But make no mistake. It was written by people who are "certain" of the answers and are now merely trying to hide that certainty behind a facade of "theory." One scientist referred to this book as a "Trojan Horse." He couldn't have been more accurate. The purpose behind its introduction in schools is clear ... to condition impressionable students to accept a faith. And what faith do you suppose they'd be inclined to accept? The predominant one of course - Judeo-Christianity. Of course, you may disagree with me. But if you do, please do me a favor. Name me some names of people in "leadership" positions within the I.D. movement who are of faiths other than Judeo-Christianity. I'm waiting ... (grin).

    By the way, this movement does not use a book as its only vanguard. A 67-minute film titled, "Unlocking The Mystery of Life" was made and shown on public television. It's even available on VHS tape and DVD. It's a very impressive video with very impressive graphics and the filmmaking was very professional. But, its purpose is no different than that of the book ... whose co-author, as it happens, appears in the film as an "expert." Basically, they found a handful of scientists (probably Judeo-Christian scientists) who take issue with Darwinism and present them in an informal setting to discuss the origin of life. I don't think you'll hear the word "God" anywhere in the film. But it's pretty darn clear that God is implied. If you want to judge for yourselves, I've encoded a low-res modem-compatible version in RealVideo format. Click here to watch it.

    In any case, that's why I'm against teaching it in schools. I.D. is not science. It's fundamentalist Christianity in scientific clothing, nothing more. The specific court case involving teaching I.D. in schools begins today in Harrisburg, PA. It's expected that after weeks of testimony, the closing arguments will be made in November ... with the judge's decision coming down in December. But this won't be the end of things. There is a lot at stake on both sides of the argument. It will surely be appealed to a higher court in 2006, regardless of the outcome of the Harrisburg trial. And regardless of the appellate court decision, it will likely be on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket in either late 2006 or early 2007. You can bet your monkey's uncle on that (grin).


    Vonage.com - Piled Higher And Deeper
    NOTE - If you have not read the blog article below, I urge you to do so. It may end up saving you money. It may even save your life! If you have already read it, click
    HERE to read an important update. It will also follow the article below. So, if you've not read it yet, read it first ... and then the update.

    Friday, August 19, 2005 - As the old joke about academia goes, we all know what "B.S." means. "M.S." means more of the same. And "Ph.D." means piled higher and deeper. But a real-life situation that involved "BSing" on the part of my broadband telephone company escalated to something altogether worse.

    If you don't know what a broadband phone is, here's a brief explanation. Except for those people who rely primarily on cellphone service, most people have "landline" service through one of the "Baby-Bell" companies like QWest, Verizon, BellSouth, etc., etc. But a growing percentage of the population has chosen to experiment with VOIP (short for "Voice Over Internet Protocol"). I decided to join that percentage in December, 2003, and signed up for telephone service through Vonage.com, a company in Edison, NJ. Here's how it worked.

    Vonage sent me a Motorola "converter" box. I plugged my ordinary telephone into the box and plugged the converter into my router ... which connects directly to my Comcast cable-internet service. When I picked up the phone, I heard a dialtone (just like a landline phone). I dialed a number (just like on a landline phone). And I connected with people on cellphones, landline phones, and all other kinds of phones. And, if they wanted to contact me, they'd merely dial my Vonage phone number (just like a landline phone number) and my phone would ring (just like a landline phone rings).

    From December, 2003 until mid-July, 2005, I couldn't have been happier with the service. For $27.24 (includes taxes) a month, I could make free calls anywhere in the United States and Canada. That's a lot better than most rates charged by "Baby Bell" companies. Sure, if your cable went out, you couldn't make calls ... or if you had a power failure, you couldn't make calls. But I expected that and bought myself a cheap TracFone cellphone for backup purposes in case of an emergency. With TracFone, you don't pay any kind of monthly fee nor do you have to sign contracts. You simply "buy minutes," code some info into the cellphone, and bingo - you're good to go ... and are charged only by minutes of usage. When you run low on minutes, you just buy more minutes. But back to my VOIP service.

    VOIP phones have one distinct disadvantage. Due to the nature of the technology (and Federal laws), VOIP numbers are exempt from "DO-NOT-CALL-LIST" enforcement. Fortunately, VOIP numbers are all unlisted numbers ... and no VOIP provider sells customer info to third parties. But, during everyday life, we all give out our phone numbers to various people. If you put the number on your checks, every check you write reveals it. And some businesses you might deal with are more than happy to make a buck by selling your phone number to a direct-marketing entity. Sadly, that's what happened to me.

    I started getting aggressive telemarketing calls ... lots of them. It got so bad that I finally just routed all calls to my voicemail queue ... answering back to only those people I knew later. But, clever me, I decided on a plan of action. I'd change my phone number with Vonage (cost, $10) and reveal this new number ONLY to close friends and family members, urging them not to share it with anyone else. And since I have a cellphone for emergencies anyway, I decided to disable the ringer and cellphone voicemail. Then, I'd list my cellphone number on my checks ... as well as give it out to people in the course of doing business. But, when I started the process of changing my number with Vonage, a darker side to them (and potentially other VOIP providers) emerged.

    As soon as my new number was active, I went online to my Vonage control panel and activated their 911 service on July 14, 2005 (you have to "activate" it for it to work). In theory, they're supposed to send out an email letting you know when the activation process is completed. The last time I did this with my old number, it took less than a day. This time, I waited, and waited, and waited, and finally got an email back on July 23rd telling me, "Sorry, we cannot activate 911 service because your address failed our address matching test." I sent a polite but firm email to their customer service department, reminding them that 911 service is part of what I'm paying for and asked what had to be done to activate it. Then I waited, and waited, and waited. Finally on July 29th, I got tired of waiting and called Vonage ... trying to ascertain a solution to the problem. Their rep, Anthony, told me it was an "internal" matter ... that Vonage would have to "force activate" the service for me. When I asked how long this would take, he said 48-72 hours. That sounded reasonable to me.

    But shortly afterward, I started getting a flurry of emails from Vonage, all saying the same thing -- "Sorry, we cannot activate 911 service because your address failed our address matching test." On August 1st, I sent an email to Vonage customer service asking them what all those emails meant. Their rep, Xaviel, responded. She said they were attempting to force-activate the service ... to just be patient ... and got the same 48-72 hours promise. So, I replied to her saying that Vonage was in breach of their contract with me starting on July 14th ... charging me, in part, for a service they were not providing. But, I told her I was willing to give Vonage the benefit of the doubt. I told her I'd give Vonage 120 hours to activate the service. If they did, fine. If not, I'd terminate my account. And, a little over 120 hours later, that's just what I did. And, I started shopping around for another VOIP provider (there are several).

    But, this is where the plot thickens. All this time I was a Vonage customer, I naturally assumed I had working 911 service. In 2003 when I initially activated my service, 911 activation completed successfully less than a day later (or so they told me). However, in a brief web-search to see if others had a 911 activation problem with Vonage, I found something very disturbing. Vonage was being sued under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by the Texas Attorney General. Why? Rather than explain, and if you ever plan to consider VOIP service, I cannot urge you strongly enough to take nine minutes of your time to watch the short RealVideo news conference where the Texas A.G. announces his lawsuit to the press. Click here if you only have a modem connection ... or here if you have a high-speed broadband connection. In that video, you'll hear what happens when you call 911 on a Vonage phone ... and see the principals in an incident that sparked the lawsuit.

    BTW, it isn't the only lawsuit against Vonage. Attorneys General in Connecticut and Michigan have also filed suit against Vonage for deceptive practices. Florida and other states may jump on the bandwagon, too. And, according to an article I'll link to below, Vonage is the defendant in several lawsuits in several states. It's just that these local lawsuits don't make it to the national media as easily as lawsuits filed by state attorneys general. And in some cases, the results of Vonage's inability to provide proper 911 service go way beyond the severity of the attorney general's case. At least the Texas family survived their gunshot wounds. But in one case, a baby stopped breathing and a mother could not reach emergency service until it was too late. At first when this story broke, Vonage came to their own defense saying that this mother not only got through once but twice. Well, she got through all right ... to a damned recording on the phone of a sheriff's non-emergency line. Later, Vonage contritely told the news media they were "working on the problem." Read this and weep for baby Julia.

    For those of you saying, "Oh my God, what would be worse than that," read the following excerpt from the transcript of CNN's Anderson Cooper show. Cooper interviewed Cheryl Waller, the dead baby's mother, on August 12th:

    COOPER: Cheryl, did you try to call Vonage -- I mean, the next day, I understand you called them. What did they say to you?

    WALLER: They actually laughed and said that they could not revive a baby.

    COOPER: Wait a minute. The person you called at that company laughed?

    WALLER: Yes. It was a woman named Marcia. She was laughing at me. She says, "I can't revive a baby." And then she thought she put me on hold, and she went in the background for another five minutes and laughed about it, joked about it.

    COOPER: We spoke to a representative of Vonage who refused to address specifically the question of whether the death of your daughter had to do with the service, but they did say this. They said, quote, "Our hearts go out to the Waller family, and we're doing everything in our power to make sure that this never happens again. In the meantime, we're sending calls to live, manned emergency service centers. In the event we cannot send the calls to a live, manned emergency service center, we're sending the calls to a live, manned phone line at a local law enforcement agency." Cheryl, is this enough?

    WALLER: No. Because that live, manned phone they say is at a police station could be the front desk where an operator went home for the day. That is not enough. Stop advertising you have 911. You don't have it. Stop advertising it.

    COOPER: Well, Cheryl Waller, again, I appreciate you being on. I think a lot of people didn't realize this, don't realize it, and I know you want to educate the public about it. So we appreciate you taking the time to do it, as painful as it is for you, Cheryl. Thank you.

    Keep this in mind, too. Cheryl Waller did not sue Vonage. She's not looking for money. She's just looking for change.

    In short, I may have been paying for a service I never had at all ... ever. If that's true, it's a very sad commentary on the state of business in this country ... that some companies are willing to shoot craps with your safety and the safety of your family. Vonage urges customers "not to test" their 911 service (since it supposed to be used ONLY for emergent calls). But in light of the call you'll hear in that video, I wonder if their urging isn't motivated by a reason other than the obvious one. Imagine going to a store to buy some pepper-spray for personal defense, only to have the store clerk hand you a closed bag, saying, "Whatever you do, don't open this bag until you need to use the spray." Then later, imagine needing to use the pepper-spray, opening the bag, and finding it empty.

    One more comment in closing. When the term "911" is used, everyone knows what it means - access to an emergency response center. Yet until recently, VOIP providers have used the term "freely," knowing that most customers would assume the traditional meaning of the term would be respected. 911 calling is too important to allow VOIP providers to "equivocate" over its meaning ... or allow VOIP providers (according to an unquoted part of that transcript above) to bury the truth in an 11-page terms of service agreement with 54 sections (as Vonage did).

    ***August 24th Update to Blog Entry Above***
    There is some light at the end of the VOIP tunnel. In May, the FCC mandated that all VOIP providers must be e911 compliant by the end of November. Note, however, that some VOIP providers are challenging the mandate ... claiming that the FCC needs to give them more time to implement it. Frankly, I don't think the FCC will buy it. One week ago today, all VOIP providers in Canada had to be e911 compliant. And according to their government sources, they all are. Point is, the 911 system in Canada is identical to the 911 system in the U.S. And many of the same VOIP providers complaining about the U.S. mandate operate in Canada ... and there, they are compliant. In short, technology isn't the issue. U.S. VOIP providers are simply trying to stall the inevitable (for reasons only they know). I'm watching these developments very carefully. And if you are considering VOIP, you should, too.

    BTW, originally, the FCC wanted to set the compliance deadline for late September ... but extended that deadline to November 29th. So, the VOIP companies pleading for more time have already been given more time. And, when asked, not one of them has yet to answer the obvious question - namely, "OK, then, how much more time DO you need ... specifically?" And, keep in mind that some U.S. VOIP providers (ie., Comcast) already offer e911 service to clients. Whatever happened to the old (yet valid) capitalistic notion that it's best to let the "strong" companies survive ... and let the "inferior" companies go down in flames? Do we really want the government to subsidize inferiority by extending the compliance deadline?

    The bright spot? Yesterday, Primus Canada announced their rollout of e911 service. And in the U.S., Primus operates under the name Lingo. If they've got the beast licked in Canada, it's likely they'll get it licked in the U.S. fairly soon. And this is a very attractive option. A visit to Lingo's website will show you why. For $19.95 per month, Lingo callers can call free anywhere in the USA, Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, Vatican City, Norway, Portugal, and Spain. I dare you to try to get the same deal from QWest, Verizon, BellSouth, or any other "Baby Bell" landline provider (grin).

    P.S. Battery-backup systems can be bought online or at local retailers like Radio Shack that will keep your computer and broadband connection up from minutes to hours (depending on the model). In fact, most broadband providers (like mine) have battery backup systems themselves. This removes the "power-failure" stumbling block inherent in broadband phones as far as 911 calling is concerned. And unless you have a lousy broadband provider, broadband downtime is no more common than landline phone-service downtime.

    True story. In January 2004, there was a terrible windstorm in my area. My broadband cable was out for over 4 hours. Because there was a phone call I had to make, I went next door to my neighbor and asked to use their landline phone. Problem? It was down, too. The same tree-limb that had taken down a power line and cut my cable also cut the phone line. Since then, I've recommended that all broadband and landline phone users have a cellphone as backup.


    Rewarding Disrespect, And the Danger of Doing So
    Friday, July 22, 2005 - Those of you old enough to remember Bayer Aspirin commercials on the radio or TV back in the 50s know what the proper response is to a cold. Quote, "Stay in bed, drink plenty of liquids, and take aspirin." Unfortunately, this good advice has been lost in a modern world that still hasn't found a cure for the common cold. Nowadays, the implied advice is, "Get out of bed, medicate yourself with symptom-relieving OTC drugs, and get yourself to work ... where you can infect your co-workers." And employers love that advice. They don't care whether you're Typhoid Mary as long you can still push a broom, type a letter, or lift a box. What's worse, they don't give a hoot whether you infect every co-worker (or customer) you come in contact with. Time is money and "sick days" cost money. Further, they encourage workers to disrespect their co-workers and customers by giving out "perfect attendance" awards. The last time one was given out where I work, I remarked how glad I was that management saw fit to identify the idiots who came to work sick and infected the rest of us. Needless to say, that remark was not well received by the award recipient (or management).

    But, I suppose an insult is better than a lawsuit. "Huh?" you say. Listen up to a sign of the times.

    It used to be that most employed people had decent health insurance. But over the years, premiums have gone up while benefits have gone down ... forcing many people to make out-of-pocket medical expenditures they previously didn't have to worry about. According to a law professor at the University of Kentucky, there is a new trend in litigation that is only in its infancy ... but is expected to grow by leaps and bounds in the future. If a co-worker comes to work and infects you with a disease, and if the treatment for that disease causes you a significant enough out-of-pocket loss, what will you do about it? Modern lawyers will tell you to sue the co-worker ... but NOT just the co-worker in some cases.

    Let's say a co-worker comes to work visibly ill. You go to your supervisor, suggesting he/she send the worker home before the worker infects you and others. The supervisor laughs at you and tells you to get back to work. Then later, you become ill. Guess what? You can now sue the co-worker for irresponsibly exposing you to a communicable disease ... and also sue the company because the supervisor didn't provide a disease-free work environment. Don't laugh. These lawsuits are on the rise.

    Case in point. A few short years ago at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, a woman came to work visibly ill. A male co-worker reported her condition to a supervisor who laughed it off. A week later, the man came down with the same condition the woman had ... mumps ... which in an adult, can cause sterility. And if that wasn't bad enough, he gave the disease to his pregnant wife ... and his lawyer contacted the Exchange. The Exchange's lawyers went into full damage-control mode, offering payment in full for needed medical care, a cash settlement for personal injury, etc., etc. The man and his wife, however, were advised by their attorney to ignore these offers ... leaving the Exchange sitting on legal pins and needles until the woman's baby was delivered.

    As it happens, this situation had a happy ending. The man's sperm motility count was still normal ... and his child was not born with any birth defect or anomaly. But since that experience, the Exchange has made it a policy to send sick workers home if they're visibly ill ... or reported as visibly ill by a co-worker.

    The Exchange was lucky. But I fear, in the future, that other employers will not be so lucky. Many employers continue the practice of chastising people for staying home sick, making them feel like they're guilty of some crime for staying home, and rewarding those who bring their diseases into the workplace. And, I fear it will take a situation like what happened in Chicago to force them to wake up and smell the coffee ... assuming they can afford coffee after they settle the lawsuit(s).

    P.S. BTW, if you think I'm joking, read the following:

    (1) Las Vegas Review Journal - The Reno Hilton disciplined workers for calling in sick. So, they started coming to work ... thereby infecting 1,000 people with the Norwalk Virus. Judgement? $25.2 million in punitive damages against the Reno Hilton. "Actual" damages? Not sure what they had to pay on that score.

    (2) BostonWorks.com - Some companies are waking up and smelling the coffee ... that not sending sick workers home affects their bottom-lines.

    (3) Langlade Cty., WI - Board of health recommends that employers send sick workers home.

    (4) Cleaning Management - A survey of employees conducted for the Kimberly-Clark Corporation by the Opinion Research Corporation makes it clear. The majority of employees feel that employers should send sick workers home.



    The Wrong Issue
    Sunday, July 10, 2005 - As a political moderate, I'm constantly entertained by the bickering that goes on between liberals and conservatives. And occasionally, they both glom onto an issue in which "both" sides ignore other issues that are related to the debate. Currently, the bickering I see in local online forums surrounds gay marriage. And after seeing all the bickering bypass an issue that was important to me, I decided to interject my unspoken issue into the debate in one forum ... and so far, no one (liberal or conservative) has responded. The following is an edited version of my post in that forum:
    When gay marriage first came into the fray of political debate, I made a post here that I admit was a bit tongue-in-cheek. But over time, I've thought about it a lot and realize that perhaps it may not be too far from what I really feel ... though I admit it's probably an ultra-minority opinion that will go nowhere legislatively.

    When asked point-blank if I was against gay marriages back then, my reply was, "I'm against ALL marriages." My 20-year marriage ended in divorce in 2000 ... but not in such a negative way that brought about this opinion. But slowly over time, between 2000 and now, I've become acutely aware of just how much society discriminates against the "single" adult citizen. The "married filing jointly" tax-break given to two-income households has to be made up for somewhere ... and the single household is where it's made up. And if it isn't enough that the government discriminates against single persons, private industry chimes in as well. Prime example? Insurance.

    Let's take health insurance. Currently, most plans only have two premium choices ... SINGLE and FAMILY. These are the bi-weekly premiums of my own health plan - $127.35 SINGLE or $242.94 FAMILY. Now, even assuming that a married couple remains childless, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that $127.35 multiplied by two equals $254.70 ... giving the married couple an $11.76 discount. But what happens if those two people crank out five kids? The rate stays the same. And again, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that unless these kids are blessed with the health of Jehovah, their per-person medical expenses will grossly exceed those of the single person. And who do you suppose ends up subsidizing this? Yup, the single insured person.

    Pardon my upcoming use of a racial epithet but it is not meant to be "racial." I'm merely using it in an illustrative way. And, this comes from 8 years experience as a claims analyst within the Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance company:

    Single persons are the "NIGGERS" of the actuarial world.

    They get screwed by health insurers. They get screwed by auto insurers. They get screwed by life insurers. And beyond insurers, they're also screwed by every tour operator who ever offered a "package deal" ... where the fine print of their offer reminds the traveler, "Double occupancy required." In short, they get screwed by EVERYBODY for the crime of not saying "I do" in front of a minister or magistrate.

    Bottom line? Married heterosexuals are already given preferential treatment in many areas of society over the single person. Therefore, why would a single person want to see the size of that preferential treatment group go up when, ultimately, the price for that change will come out of their own pocket?


    One Unforgivable Omission
    Sunday, March 27, 2005 - Since I hadn't seen it in a few years, I decided to rent the 2003 DVD release of "The Right Stuff." However, while I love the movie and always have, I posted a review at Amazon.com giving it only 4 out of 5 stars. Rather than explain things, I'll just post that review:
    I do not fault the filmmaker for minor conceptual and factual flaws in this film. Performances by everyone involved in the film project more than make up for them. But in my opinion, there was one unforgivable factual omission specific to the 2003 DVD release. That is why I assign 4 rather than 5 stars to this DVD release.

    Dialogue within the film appears to discredit Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom's statement that he did not blow the hatch cover when the Liberty Bell 7 space capsule splashed down. When the film was first released, it made sense to include this controversy and the filmmakers themselves cannot be held at fault for doing so. But in 1999, 38 years after the splashdown and 4 years before the DVD release, Wilhelm Aerospace Engineering helped salvage the Liberty Bell 7 from its watery grave 15,000 feet beneath the sea. And while no one can say for sure what caused the hatch to blow, their website includes a photograph of the "undisturbed" hatch cover trigger, proving conclusively that Grissom was not at fault ... that, as Grissom said at the time, it must have been a technical glitch.

    Because the DVD was released 4 years after Grissom's vindication, this fact should have been mentioned either prior to the film or immediately afterward so as not to cast any aspersions on the bravery of this great astronaut, who later gave his life during the tragic 1967 Apollo fire (along with his colleagues, Edward White and Roger Chaffee). And, it would have also served as a belated apology for aspersions cast in the film itself and in previous releases of the film on home video.



    The "DUH" Factor - Saying Stupid Things
    Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - There are times when saying stupid things can be downright funny. But, other times, it can be downright unfunny. First, an example of the former.

    Actor Bela Lugosi is best known for his role in the classic 1931 horror film, "Dracula," in which he was cast in the title role. He played several other roles in several other films but never quite shook his typecasting as the quintessential vampire. And when he died, it seemed fitting that (by his own choice) he requested burial in his famous vampire cloak. Most film buffs know about that. But here's a rare tidbit of trivia that many don't know about.

    When he died in 1956, Peter Lorre and Vincent Price, both friends and colleagues with their own fame in the horror film world, went to his funeral. Earlier in the day, however, Lorre and Price had been drinking a little bit ... not to the point of being drunk, but merely tipsy. And Lorre had spent the morning with Price, telling funny vampire jokes to him, keeping them both in stitches. Finally, Price put his foot down and asked Lorre to stop telling the jokes. After all, their friend had died and they were both about to attend a very serious funeral service for him. So, Lorre promised no more vampire jokes.

    Lugosi's funeral was held and it was all very dignified. Afterward, guests assembled to walk past Lugosi's coffin for one last look at the actor before his burial. Price and Lorre walked up to the coffin and looked down to see their friend dressed and made up in his classic film role. Just then, Lorre tugged on Price's suit and whispered in his classic evil voice, "Vincent ... do you think we should drive a stake through his heart to make sure?"

    Price lost his dignified composure. He started laughing and finally turned toward Lorre, saying in a loud voice, "You son of a bitch!" The problem was that, by the time he turned, Lorre had already made his exit from the chapel ... leaving Price, with a giggling smirk on his face, being given the evil eye by other attendees for his unseemly behavior.

    At the moment, Price probably didn't think his situation was all that funny. But he later acknowledged that it was and forgave Lorre for making him laugh at the funeral. And, if there is an afterlife, I'm certain that Bela himself was probably looking down on them and laughing as well. But sometimes, stupid things can be said or done that provoke both resentment and anger.

    Recently, President Bush made a strong statement against Syria's occupation of Lebanon. But, included in that statement were two gaffs he probably wishes he could retract. First, he said that our friends, the Saudis, stood side-by-side with the United States in fostering democracy in Lebanon. Uhhh ... excuse me, but, how about fostering democracy in Saudi Arabia first? Since when do Kings and Princes who parade their wealthy largesse in front of the world with their globetrotting parties know the first thing about democracy? Now, if Bush had used Bahrain, Jordan, or Kuwait as examples, it would have been kosher since these three Middle Eastern allies have "constitutional" monarchies. But, no, Bush decides to parade the Saudis as champions of democracy. Secondly, he said of Lebanon that democracy has no chance in any country as long as there's a presence of a foreign occupier. Excuse me ... but isn't that what we're doing in Iraq, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Spain, etc., etc.? Heck, the United States is the King of Occupiers in the world. If it wasn't for the 40 countries where we don't have troops, the U.S. military would be everywhere.

    Frankly, I'm one person who's become sick and tired of my country and my presidency becoming the laughingstock of the world ... especially when I know that the rest of the world isn't really laughing. The 2008 Presidential Election can't come soon enough for me.

    P.S. One more unfunny stupid thing. Recently, a Lincoln Day Dinner was held in Elko, Nevada for Republican Party hobnobbing. U.S. Representative, Jim Gibbons (R-NV), made a very moving speech that had people in quite a fervor. He bashed liberal entertainers and liberals in general with comments like, "I say we tell those liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock stocking wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and their music and whine somewhere else." In intensity, it could be likened to the speech given by Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention last year. The problem?

    Gibbons stole the speech.

    Of the 21 paragraphs in it, 15 were a word-for-word ripoff of a speech made in 2003 at a "Stand Up America" rally by Alabama State Auditor, Beth Chapman. Even worse, Chapman copyrighted the speech. Gibbons has since apologized to Chapman and Chapman has forgiven him. But, the most stupid thing to be said by Gibbons occurred when reporters asked him how he acquired the speech. His reply? "I don't remember where I got it."

    Uh-huh, and if my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather.


    When What You See Is NOT What You Get
    Sunday, February 6, 2005 - I've weened myself off most TV altogether. When I do watch, it's usually some kind of special program on a topic of interest ... or possibly, an old film I want to see again. This is not altogether the fault of programmers providing immature programs. In some cases, it's the fault of advertisers. Example. For years, TV programs (and ads) portrayed women in an unflattering way ... being stupid or inept, always needing the intervention of a man to make things right. Women's advocacy groups put pressure on networks and, for the most part, that kind of programming is now hard to find. Instead, viewers now find the reverse ... programs (and ads) portraying men in an unflattering way ... being stupid or inept, always needing the intervention of a woman to make things right. This article (
    click here) is two years old but is not "dated" by any stretch of the imagination in its description of the problem.

    In any case, when I see a program that falls into that category, I always complain to the station or network showing it. And, when I see an ad that falls into that category, I always complain to the advertiser ... usually telling them I'll boycott their product until the ad is pulled. That's about all I can do. But, at least, I can do something. However, there are some ads on TV that really rub me the wrong way. And, I'd complain about them if I thought it would make even a small difference. Unfortunately, I see these ads ... openly deceptive ... as a trend that assumes the average viewer is an absolute moron who can't see through the deception. Two examples follow.

    GEICO Ads - We've all seen those cutesy ads featuring a bland-looking straight man coupled with the cartoon gecko, saying that GEICO has a 97% customer satisfaction ratio ... that they're attempting to find the elusive 3% in some kind of holy search for absolute satisfaction. OK ... think about that for a second. If you were insured by GEICO (or any other insurance company for that matter), filed a claim against your policy, and then had your policy unceremoniously cancelled, you wouldn't be a "customer" anymore ... would you? So, you don't count. Assuming the statistics they quote were true (and they might be), I suspect they know exactly who comprises that elusive 3%. Face it ... to most people, their only contact with an auto insurance company is the premium check they write. That's nothing to be "unsatisfied" about unless you feel you could get a cheaper rate. And if you do feel that way, finding another company would probably be an easy thing to do. So who DOES comprise that elusive unsatisfied 3%? It's obvious ... people who made claims against their policies but have NOT been cancelled ... (ahem) yet. And, I further suspect that GEICO is in the process of culling out their "problem" customers (the ones who have filed claims) in order to achieve their goal. In short, I suspect they've begun a strict cancellation policy against claimants ... but are putting a "spin" on it to make it seem like they'd be a great company to be insured by. After all, they'll need new customers to replace the ones they'll cancel.

    I WANT MY VACATION ads - This ad is more recent. It shows an arrogant businessman sitting behind a desk with an evil grin on his face ... cackling about how 26% of U.S. workers take no vacation whatsoever. Then, they put up a link to a website - IWantMyVacation.com - which, at the top of the homepage, claims to champion "Vacation Advocacy" - that they're a site dedicated to, quote, "helping people obtain the vacations they deserve." At first, this ad impressed me. I'm certain that 26% figure is close to the truth ... just as I'm sure that workers in the U.S. have far fewer vacation and/or holiday days off than EVERY other industrialized country in the world. But, I challenge you to visit that site and find anything that would remotely be considered "vacation advocacy" related. You won't find anything on that topic there. What you WILL find are statistics showing you how bad off you are, a cutesy "Punch The Boss" Flash game, and clever ads for Universal Orlando, a resort and theme park in Florida ... and the only thing that site advocates is that you put your money in their pockets.

    In ads today, what you see is NOT always what you get. In many cases, you're being stroked by money hungry opportunists who bypass the traditional approach to advertising (to show a consumer evidence that their product or service is worth buying) in favor of deceptive come-ons to entrap you into THEIR way of thinking.


    It's A Wild World
    Saturday, January 29, 2005 - When I had the time to do so, I used to enjoy watching the Regis show. At the time, his co-host was Kathy Lee Gifford. While it may not have been related, she retired from the show shortly after an incident marred her image. Like many celebs, she allowed her name to be associated with a line of clothing. The problem is that this clothing was made by questionable manufacturers suspected of using child labor in sweatshop conditions. When the revelations came out, the public had to endure a week or so worth of a teary-eyed Kathy Lee, chanting, "I didn't know ... I really didn't know."

    I suspected then (and now) that she was not lying ... that she really didn't know about these horrible conditions. The reason is because every other aspect of her life that I know of is a positive aspect. She was just another unwitting victim of these sweatshop manufacturers. And, her only crime was to be clueless and trusting of their reputations.

    Recently, Yusuf Islam has been in the news. Prior to his conversion to Islam, he was better known as the musical icon, Cat Stevens ("Peace Train," "Wild World," etc.). He's in the news now because he's giving a benefit concert in Jakarta (Indonesia) to aid victims of the 2004 tsunami that ravaged parts of the subcontinent. I think that's wonderful and wish him every success in that endeavor. However, what galls me is the media response to it. Nearly every online newspaper I've read, foreign and domestic, brings up the September 2004 incident where he was refused entry into the United States due to, as our government claims, his association with terrorist fund-raisers. Yusuf Islam claims that no effort has been made by our government to explain what these accusations are based on. Or, in his own words, quote, "There's been no coherent answer from them, they apparently don't feel as if they have to answer any questions these days. Their messages have been complete mumbo-jumbo."

    The common theme in these articles? USA=bad, Yusuf=good. But, it ain't necessarily so.

    In the first place, it's been common knowledge (and not just to the U.S. government) that certain Islamic charities have funneled money to terrorist organizations. And, while it's completely possible that Yusuf Islam (like Kathy Lee) is clueless and trusting of the reputations of certain charities, one thing makes me wonder. While his charity work has been extensive, it's well to remember that he's the same Yusuf Islam who came out in public support of the Ayatollah Khomeni's fatwah (death sentence) against author, Salman Rushdie ... merely because Rushdie exercised free speech in his novel, "Satanic Verses," which is seen as somewhat uncomplimentary to his religion.

    Sorry ... but being nice to the poor is no excuse for intolerance ... to come out in support of someone's death merely because they disagree with your line of thinking. It's the same kind of intolerance that fuels hate groups from the American Nazi Party to the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade. And while Cat Stevens may want us all to "ride the peace train," it's possible that Yusuf Islam also wants us to ride it ... but only if it's peace on his terms, according to the mandates of extremists in his faith.