.38 Caliber Therapy

Medical Mart

2009-01-22T16:21:00.000-08:00

I love Cleveland. When you live here, you never get bored reading about our *ahem* city leaders. For those not in the area, Cleveland has been talking about building a medical mart for a couple of years. I think every resident is still somewhat fuzzy on what a medical mart is but it seems to be a convention center type place that specializes in hosting shows focusing on sales of technology and equipment for the medical community. This is supposed to be the latest way to bring money into Cleveland.

Last year, the city enacted an additional sales tax to help pay for this thing. So far they've collected about $42 million and thus far, nothing of consequence has been done. Some lawyers and consultants have made six-figure salaries, but that's about it. The main thing they were trying to decide is a location. It was between Tower City, the complex of shopping, hotel, and rapid transit station under the Terminal Tower, and the old Cleveland Convention Center, and underused and abysmal building.

In the Plain Dealer a few days ago, they had an article about site selection. One person they cited was a guy who has been in the convention business his whole career. The Plain Dealer basically said this guy has forgotten more about the convention business than most people involved in the project know. He was quoted as saying that the old convention center is an absolutely horrible building in a horrible location and that building the new medical mart there would be an absolute disaster.

Can you guess which site our "leaders" picked? I'll bet you can. They picked the disaster site. Yes, projections indicate this may cost $100 million less than building at Tower City but what's the long term cost? The project will still cost $400 million (plus you know there will be cost overruns). If the mart ends up being a disaster and no one comes or it's hardly used, we will have wasted $400 million to save $100 million.

Granted, I wasn't part of the discussion. I haven't been in any of the meetings. Maybe these people know something I don't. But what I can say is that I have no faith in Cleveland leadership to get anything right. They screwed up the Euclid Corridor Project. They haven't managed to do anything to re-vitalize the city and if there's a wrong decision to make here, I'm sure they'll make it.

Too Cold for Our Wittle Darlings

2009-01-18T10:11:00.001-08:00

So the kids in my city had no school on either this past Thursday or Friday. Ostensibly this was because it was so cold (which it was). Apparently, it doesn't matter that fewer kids walk to school now than ever. Still, it was pretty cold and for those kids that do walk, I'm sure they appreciated it.

That being said, what's the longest walk any of these kids probably have? 20 minutes? Maybe 30? Again, not great given the weather but how serious is it really? Apparently not that serious.

The front page of the Saturday Plain Dealer had four photos of people dealing with or doing things on Friday. The bottom right corner was a 10 year old kid who spent the day at Boston Mills ski resort. So, seemingly it was far too cold for this kid to go to school, where he would have been in a heated building most of the day, but it wasn't too cold to go to a ski resort.

Such is the fallacy of "cold days" and "snow days" in school systems. The theory is that school is called off because it's too dangerous or treacherous to go. But go to any mall on one of these days and you'll see these same kids had no problem getting there. It must just be dangerous driving to school but the roads to the malls and ski resorts are apparently cleared. It's such absolute bullshit.

Here's my solution: change the school calendar. Instead of giving kids off the Summer, give them off the worst of the Winter. Suspend school from December through February instead of June through August. That way, our precious little darlings will be protected and the school system can save money by cranking down the heat in the buildings. AC in the Summer will be cheaper that heat in the Winter, and you only need air conditioning when it's really hot.

"Miracle" on the Hudson

2009-01-16T07:25:00.000-08:00

Okay, so yesterday a US Air jet crashed into the Hudson river after apparently flying into a flock of birds that took out both engines. Birds are actually pretty dangerous to airplanes. A significant minority of military plane crashes have been blamed on run-ins with birds. Since the pilot did such a great job of landing the plane in the water and no one was seriously hurt, he's being called a hero and the whole event labeled a "miracle."

Miracles aside, I think the pilot did a great job and definitely is to be commended. But does anyone notice anything funny about the picture I've posted here, and all the pictures of this crash?

I'll tell you what I notice. I notice that this picture looks absolutely nothing like the drawings of water landings on the safety cards in the seatbacks of any planes I've ever flown on. When you read the safety card for the plane, it almost always shows the plane serenely sitting on top of the water with the inflatable exits extended and apparently propping the plane up. Passengers in the drawings are smiling as they slide down what looks to be a pretty fun little ride. The flight attendant stands by the opening, cheerfully assisting passengers down the slide and into little inflatable life boats.

That's not what I saw in the Hudson yesterday. I saw no inflatable life boats and one inflatable slide. I did not see friendly flight attendants helping gleeful passengers calmly exit the plane. I saw a plane nearly fully submerged. I saw people in frigid water and on stretchers.

Again, the flight crew did a great job and what we saw on TV yesterday was exactly what we'd expect to see. But it highlights the sheer stupidity of the in-flight safety cards. The plane yesterday was barely off the ground and still basically sank when it landed in the water. Hitting the water from a couple thousand feet in the air is like landing on concrete. So both from low altitude and higher altitude, I think the safety cards are wildly optimistic about your chances. Then again, I suppose it might not make people too comfortable if the drawings depicted what really happens.

Elevator Etiquette

2009-01-12T05:43:00.000-08:00

I've now worked in a downtown highrise for 3 years and there's something I've watched consistently over that time that bothers me and is inexplicable. Women always get to get in the elevator first. I don't understand this. I was never taught this as a child. It seems to be some unwritten rule that everyone simply abides by.

Now, I know what you're thinking. It's merely a chivalrous act. A holdover from the days when men always opened doors for women, etc. Of course this is what's going on. I understand it from that point of view. But as a symbolic act, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Opening a door for a woman makes sense. Doors can be heavy and awkward. Even if a woman is stronger than the man she's with, historically we wanted women to appear to be the weaker sex. I still generally open doors for women, if they allow it.

But the elevator makes no sense. By letting women board first, I'm not easing any physical burden for them. In my building, the elevators are awful. On any given week, at least one is broken. So, when you come to work in the morning, you may have to wait several minutes to get on one.

This morning when I came in, I arrived at the elevator bank simultaneously with 5 other men. One pushed the button and we waited. The elevator came about three minutes later and by then, another 2 men and 4 women had shown up. As soon as the light when on for the elevator that arrived, all the women moved to be right in front of it and, sure enough, got on first when the doors opened. One of the guys who initially got there when I did didn't even make it on. He had to wait for the next elevator. This is ridiculous. Aren't we all supposed to be equal now? I mean, we're all trying to get to work. Opening doors and paying for dinner is one thing but I don't understand why women should be given preferential treatment to elevators.

I guess what bothers me is not that men step aside and let women board first. It's that women now expect this, as if it is some inalienable right. Like the women this morning. They didn't wait until the door opened and a man asked them to please go first. They simply cut right in front of all the men who had been there longer and assumed they should get on first. It reminds me of driving. In the old days, if a person wanted to come into your lane they would signal and you'd slow down to let them in or flash your lights to let them know. Then they would wave to you to acknowledge the gesture. When I drive now, most people don't even signal their intentions and if you do take action to let them get in front of you, they almost never give an acknowledging wave anymore. It's as if people feel they simply have to right to get in front of you if they want. They don't acknowledge that you have taken an affirmative step to exhibit a small act of kindness. Frankly, this has led me, and I suspect others, to exhibit fewer acts of kindness. I don't need anyone to praise me, but if I'm going to do something nice for someone, there's nothing wrong with at least a simple acknowledgement. I guess I also believe that if people want equality, then they should be reticent to accept preferential treatment.

My New Baby

2008-12-30T17:20:00.000-08:00

Some people get excited over a new relationship. Me? I get excited over a new guitar. This year, I decided to spend some of my yearly bonus on myself. I usually put all my money in the bank but this year I decided to spend some. So, the first thing I bought was this sweet red Jackson guitar. I was looking for another Ibanez but after playing this one, I was sold. It has EMG pickups and while I've always maintained that a good guitarist can make even a cheap guitar sound good, these pickups definitely make a difference. My finger tips are sore from playing it already and I have to admit, she's a sexy little thing.

A Little Holiday Driving Advice

2008-12-26T06:39:00.000-08:00

The New Year is almost upon us and it's my sincere hope that all drivers out there can make a few resolutions about how they'll handle their vehicles in the upcoming year. The following are a sample of some resolutions that I'd like to see people embrace that would make my life easier:

1) When it snows on you car, please clean the snow off of more than just a one square foot spot on the front windshield in front of your own face. It doesn't take much more time to brush the snow off the back window and it may actually help you to see what is going on in the other dimensions in which you car travels. While you're at it, brush off the snow on top of your car as well. This will be appreciated by those traveling behind you so that they don't have to deal with the whiteout created by your car. If you're too goddamn lazy to brush off your car, clean some shit out of your garage so you can use it for its intended purpose, parking your car.

2) People need to make several resolutions regarding turn signals. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Please actually use a turn signal. If you're going to yell at me or give me the finger, it would be helpful if I at least knew your intentions so that I could better assess the grievous error I've apparently committed.
b) Understand that just because you put your turn signal on, I am not obliged to let you cut in front of me. It is a courtesy for me to do so, not your birthrite. If I do allow you in, it would not kill you to give an appreciative hand wave.
c) Do not put on your turn signal after you've already started cutting in front of me. That does not make it okay, nor does it in any way lessen my desire to cave in your skull with a Louisville Slugger.
d) If you are stopped at a light and intend to turn, do not wait until the light turns green to turn on your turn signal. The whole point of a turn "signal" is to signal people as to your intentions so that they can take appropriate action. Not using the device in advance really misses the whole point and confirms that you have an IQ at least one standard deviation below the mean.

3) If there is no one in front of you and traffic lights are green, there is no reason to hit your brakes. We all know these people. They incessantly tap their brakes every few feet as if maintaining some sort of vigil for the imaginary deaf child at play who never materializes. You do not have to hit your brakes because something is happening on the side of the road traveling in the opposite direction. You do not have to hit your brakes beause the person in the next lane traveling in the same direction has hit his/her brakes. Just drive the fucking car. If no one stops in front of you and the lights are green, there is no reason to apply your brakes.

4) Okay folks, ostensibly we all passed driver's ed. Apparently, however, some people need a refresher. On a 4 lane road, you do not have to stop for a stopped school bus traveling in the opposite direction from you. I know the little darlings are our future and we're all trying to be hyper-safe but you are a menace if you stop when you're not supposed to. Keep in mind that all the people who passed driver's ed without writing the answers on their palm are not expecting you to stop. If you decide to make up your own laws when driving, don't be surprised if someone follows you home and covers your car with feces.

I could easily go on and on but in the spirit of the holidays, I'll just leave it at these few notions that have been particularly distressing to me in 2008. I doubt anyone will change. We all think we're phenomenal drivers just as we think everyone else is fat, or a bad parent, or not good in bed. All I know is that every time I drive I'm grateful that I haven't yet obtained my concealed carry permit.

Warning!!! Invasion!!!

2008-12-23T16:34:00.000-08:00

Everyone who knows me knows that I'm not given to hyperbole. However, I feel it is my duty to alert America to a frightening reality. Not unlike the old sci-fi movie 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers,' our television journalists in America are slowly being replaced with supermodels. Or at least some form of pod creature that looks like a supermodel (see photo of CNBC business honey Erin Burnett below).

I'm not exactly sure when this happened but it is definitely an insidious trend. Local news anchorwomen have typically been somewhat comely lasses but lately they are increasingly stunning. I then started noticing that even on the "serious" national news shows, on-site reporters began being replaced with women who could model for Victoria's Secret. Now even sports channels, like ESPN and the NFL network, those bastions of testosterone encumbered reporters, have succumbed. More and more of there on-field reporters are freakishly beautiful women.

I'm not sure of the ultimate plan of these obviously alien lifeforms. For now, I just think we need to be vigilant. There is no doubt they are taking over. However, at this point, they simply seem to be replacing formerly unattractive anchor women and puppet-headed men. I think we can peacefully coexist if that is their only aim. But I for one am going to keep a careful eye on these stunning women bringing me my news and entertainment. In fact, I think I may even need to enroll in journalism school. Befriending these women may be dangerous, but I'll do it for my country.

WTF?

2008-12-17T12:56:00.000-08:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468250,00.html

All I gotta say is who the fuck names their kid Adolf Hitler? What a couple of absolute assholes. Look, I've long ago made peace with the fact that this world is populated by a significantly high percentage of absolute morons. With all due apologies to the bell curve, I'm not convinced intelligence is really laid out that way. I think there's quite a bit of skewing to the low end.

Thus, it doesn't surprise me that there are still people in this world who know so little about human life and biology that they actually think that one group of people is superior to another. It doesn't surprise me that these people find some comfort in wearing sheets while attending their regular meetings of village idiots. It doesn't even surprise me that they find Nazi symbolism "cool." Heck, even serial killers have fan clubs and trading cards.

But to name your kid Adolf Hitler is beyond ignorant. In my days as a shrink, I used to administer intelligence tests on occasion. I'm pretty certain that the instrument cannot measure intelligence this low. I mean, it's one thing to make your own political statement. You love Hitler? Fine. Change your own name to Hitler as an adult and deal with the consequences. By why would anyone who even remotely cares about their child name him Hitler? Now, in addition to having a hard time getting a birthday cake, the kid is going to have to deal with all kinds of abuse and taunting through no fault of his own but simply because he's the product of two lobotomized parents.

The dad says they named their kid Adolf Hitler just because he like the name. Sure. Okay. I buy that. You're not really a narrow-minded white supremicist. It's just a cool name. I guess that's why you named your daughter JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...This planet really could use another good mass extinction.

Save My Job! Just Don't Ask Me To

2008-12-12T08:29:00.000-08:00

I see the story in the Plain Dealer this morning that the "Big" 3 automotive bailout may fall apart because some Republicans had the nerve to ask the UAW for immediate pay cuts to it's union members as part of the agreement. Wow. How could they think of such a thing? Thinking that, in exchange for billions of dollars of taxpayer money, the companies and workers might actually have to change and adapt to a new work landscape. Who do these congressmen think they are?

Now, I'm not Republican and the people demanding these concessions by the UAW are being criticized by other, mostly Democratic, members of congress. But I applaud them. There are multiple reasons why the American car companies are in the big trouble they're in. It certainly isn't all the fault of the autoworker. That being said, every industry analyst worth her salt has indicated that the Big 3 labor rates are simply out of step with today's industry and are continuing to hamstring the firms. So the UAW wants my tax dollars to help preserve their jobs but they don't want to take a pay cut to preserve their jobs? Something's wrong there.

The Republicans proposing this measure are not suggesting that autoworkers accept minimum wage pay. They simply state the American companies labor rates should be brought in line with those of the foreign car companies. Makes sense to me. How can GM possibly compete if they have to pay $37.50 perhour for the same service that Toyota pays $21.00 per hour? It's not feasible. And while no one wants to see their pay cut (I certainly wouldn't), it's still better to have a job, and a decent paying one at that, than not have a job at all, isn't it? Again, are the UAW members sympathetic to all the people in this country who work 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs and still wouldn't make the same hourly wage as the proposed cuts being asked for?

I'm sorry. This industry needs drastic changes and it's going to be painful. I've experienced plenty of pain in this economy in the form of a dramatic decline in my savings and retirement investments. None of that was my fault but I've had to suck it up, plus watch even more of my tax dollars go to help people who in many cases are responsible for their own demise. It makes me furious but I didn't get to vote on it, didn't have any say, and simply have to bend over, grab my ankles, and take it. Pardon me if I expect UAW workers to do the same and make some sacrifices to preserve their own jobs.

My grandfather was a tool and die maker for GM. No, I mean he actually was a tool and die maker. This was at a time when this was a skilled position. The parts that he helped to make were fabricated by hand. Individual dies were measured with a host of hand tools. They were designed with pencils, slide rules, and machined with hefty doses of elbow grease. My grandfather made a decent living at GM and had a terrific benefits package thanks to UAW efforts. No one denies the union has helped workers have a better life. But much work in modern automotive plants is arguably less skilled but the pay has continued to climb past the point of being reasonable. In my grandfather's day, he was a craftsman and was paid well because he had a skill set that took years to hone. Today we're paying some people $40 and hour to push a button to run an automated assembly machine. That is simply not sustainable. And the real craftsman who remain today, the auto mechanics who service these vehicles, get squeezed by the ridiculous dealership fiefdoms.

No one wants to see anyone lose jobs or have their salary decrease. However, sometimes that's exactly what's needed to make the country and the population at large more healthy. Yes, the UAW has made concessions in the past. They should have. They have a vested interest in keeping the company healthy. Yes, they've been betrayed by management. But that doesn't mean they still don't have to do their part to solve the problem.

You know, I keep reading editorials by all these UAW members whining about how we, the American public, are to blame because we don't buy American. Fascinating. Last night I watched a news special on Russia and they talked about how GM just had the grand opening of a $300 million dollar plant in Russia. Hmm... So GM is hurting, we should all buy American, but GM has $300 million to invest in a plant in Russia that will give jobs to Russians and help the Russian economy. Sure, if they sell a lot of cars there it will help GM as a whole and, consequently, the U.S. But my point is that there's no such thing as American anymore. It would do the autoworkers well to accept this, stop whining, and do what they have to do to preserve their jobs at all. If they think that $17 - $25 an hour wages are an insult, they can always go work at McDonald's.

Oprah's Fat Again!

2008-12-10T17:00:00.000-08:00

So Oprah Winfrey is now saying she's embarrassed because she's ballooned back up to 200lbs. Well, she should be embarrassed. I would have given her credit for admitting that she was wolfing down food like Chris Farley at Hometown Buffet. But then she countered this by saying her thyroid condition was a major factor in her weight gain. How come every time a woman gets fat, she all of a sudden has a thyroid condition?

Look, Oprah simply has the body of a big girl. She's fat. It's her body's more comfortable state. When she is skinnier, you can always tell she's just going to pile it all back on again. Notwithstanding TV Guide's wonderful job of pasting Oprah's head on Ann Margaret's body, Oprah always looks weird when she tries to get skinny. Unfortunately for her, she's just fat.

Also unfortunate is that she cannot accept that she fat so she's taken her viewers and readers on her journeys with yo-yo diets, fad exercise routines, and a parade of pictures that look like they were taken with funhouse mirrors. While Oprah can do whatever she wants to herself, I think her out of control lifestyle is incredibly harmful to her so-called fans. She is not a role model for healthy living. She gets a bug up her butt, loses some weight, and then eventually loses control and gains it all back. If you ask me, it's a symptom of a much deeper problem that fame and wealth have apparently not been able to compensate for.

Personally, I think it's just a little bit of karma for putting her big, fat head on the cover of every issue of that appallingly bad magazine she publishes.

Random Thoughts

2008-12-06T18:16:00.000-08:00

Every once in a while I feel like just posting a collection of random thoughts on various, usually unrelated topics. In fact, my waking brain can best be characterized as random thoughts on unrelated topics. A couple things I've been thinking about lately:

Guys at the gym never change. I started back at the gym about 2 weeks ago. When I started my current job, I let the membership lapse because I couldn't get there in the morning anymore. Now that I live alone again, I joined back up. As I said, I've only been back 2 weeks but I've already encountered several guys who disgust me. These were individuals but they're also archetypes of guys you always see at the gym. One guy was there today. He walks around apparently not able to put his arms at his sides because he's so "huge." Of course, he has a mullet and his stomach sticks out further than his chest but his muscles are apparently too big to let his arms comfortably lie at his sides like most of us. It is also clear that they do not make shirts large enough to cover such muscles because I had many more looks at his nipples than I would prefer.

A second type of guy at the gym is the young guy who's in pretty good shape but still walks around like he's God's gift to the women there. Last week a woman was working out and she had a very nice body and was attractive, at least the most attractive woman there at the time. Mr. Cool Guy walks up to her and says, "I just thought I'd let you know that you have quite a lot of fans here." *urp* Excuse me. That was just a little vomit coming up in my throat. Did he really say that? Yes, he did. Let me re-phrase the statement to communicate what he really meant. "Excuse me. I just thought I'd let you know that I'm a fan of yours. Of course, I'm not going to say that directly because even though my only goal with you is to soap up your perfect breasts in the shower, if I say that you'll be disgusted. So instead, I'm going to act like I'm not the kind of guy who hits on every woman under 45 at the gym and act like I'm just complimenting you by letting you know that all the other men here, except me, are pigs and find you attractive."

And speaking of soaping up, the other thing I will never, ever, ever, understand is why guys, and it's always guys over the age of 55, seem to have to shave naked in the locker room of the gym. First of all, why are you shaving at the gym anyway? Jesus Christ, shave at home. I see no reason for guys to shave at the gym. But, if you insist on doing so, please wear pants. Should I desire to wash my hands in the locker room sink (yuck) I do not want to know that your old junk has been rubbing all over it. And frankly, why do 60+ year old, overweight guys want to spend time naked anyway? I think you'd want to wear clothes as much as possible. All I can say is eewwww.

Taylor Swift, the 18 year old country singing sensation, is a very beautiful woman. She has an absolutely gorgeous face. She's a bit awkward but I think it's because she's so tall and young. She hasn't really grown into her body yet. While I'll look at her any time she's on my TV, I think she's really not a very good singer. I've heard a couple of her songs from her albums and they're not bad but I've heard her sing live on two awards shows and it's not so good. A lot of people sound good when recorded. A good producer can work magic. But you can't fool people live. It's funny to me because when Shania Twain came out, the knock on her was that she was just pretty and couldn't sing but I've heard her live and she has a good voice. Certainly better than Taylor Swift, Kellie Pickler, or even Faith Hill, who also sounds terrible live. There's no doubt that appearance has played into the success of all these women but I hate hearing someone sing live when they really can't sing.

Divorce is much harder when you actually like your spouse.

I know this is going to make me sound like a real geek, but last week when I went with my nephews to see the new James Bond movie, we saw a preview for the upcoming Star Trek film. It's about the original characters when they just join Star Fleet. It stars Zachary Quinto as young Spock. He's the best character on the NBC show 'Heroes'. At the risk of being a geek, the movie looks pretty cool and I'm just a little psyched for it.

Since my accident and being forced to buy a new car, I have continued to actually be a little afraid of driving. Driver's seem increasingly distracted these days and, on average, I see a couple of accidents a week. I'm not looking forward to Winter driving season.

My 7 Albums

2008-11-26T17:35:00.000-08:00

After some deliberation, and my conditions set forth in my previous post, below are my top 7 albums. Thanks to Mando Mama for tagging me. And, of course, I need to post this link back to the originator of the project. Without further ado, and in no particular order, here are my top 7:

1. Meet the Beatles - The Beatles - Other people have mentioned the Beatles but typically mention their later albums. I think there's a belief that as their music became more sophisticated, and arguably more meaningful, the later albums were better. The Beatles are probably my favorite band of all time but I really love their early stuff. This album can generally only be found now under the title With the Beatles but I have an original copy from my Aunt when it came out in the 60's and it was called Meet the Beatles. I don't think there's a song on it longer than 3 minutes but is is simply well-crafted pop. A great album that makes you feel good.

2. Blizzard of Oz - Ozzy Osbourne - The seminal Ozzy solo album and a virtuoso guitar performance from Randy Rhoads. This album forshadowed what might have been had Randy not been killed. The songs are iconic and Randy managed to duplicate them incredibly well even when playing live. I think Ozzy has such a unique voice and has had such an impact on heavy metal that he has to be on the list. That being said, I was torn between this album and Sabotage by Black Sabbath.

3. Thriller - Michael Jackson - This is a great album. I think half the album was a No. 1 hit. Catchy songs, great production, and the album that really ushered in the Michael Jackson era many of us remember fondly.

4. All The Best - Paul McCartney - I know I already have a Beatles album on here but McCartney is such a great songwriter that his Wings and other solo work deserves mention. It's probably a bit of a cop-out to include a compilation album but almost every song on here is great and so many of them remind me of simpler times in my life. This is one album I'd want to have on a desert island.

5. Van Halen - Van Halen - The first Van Halen album is a guitar tour-de-force. It completely changed hard rock and metal guitar playing for a decade and Eddie is arguably the most influential guitar player since Hendrix. This album has fabulous tone, great, fun songs, and Diamond Dave at his best.

6. Black Cherry - Goldfrapp - There might be better electro-pop albums but I love this one. Alison Goldfrapp's vocals are so silky and sultry and the music is fantastic. I like all of their albums but I think this is my favorite by a thread. Strict Machine is one of my all time favorite songs.

7. Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness - The Smashing Pumpkins - Some people may think Billy Corgan acts like a jerk and putting out a double album can be pretentious but this is simply a fanstastic album. The songs are well-crafted, the production is incredible, and I love albums that can take you through a range of emotions like this one does. It's an incredible accomplishment because there aren't many weak songs in the collection.

Album Tagging

2008-11-25T10:12:00.000-08:00

So, Mando Mama tagged me with the task of naming the 7 best albums. I don't have my list yet but it's shaping up. As I've been thinking about this, I've imposed my own set of rules on it. First, there are certain types of music I've excluded. For example, while someone could certainly pick the best or most influential rap/hip-hop album of all time, that someone is not me. I don't listen to that genre enough to have a qualified opinion. Classical is also tough because deceased classical composers like Chopin and Bach did not put out albums. If you're going to list a favorite classical recording, then you have to get into things like which orchestra, which conductor, etc. For example, I have a recording of Orff's Carmina Burana by the Cleveland Orchestra conducted by George Szell that I'm particularly fond of. I don't think that counts. My final rule is that the list cannot contain any album by Led Zeppelin. Partly this is because I like to piss people off but also because this is not a list of the 7 most overrated bands of all time.

So I've basically decided that I will only pick my seven from albums I actually own. This seems fair because it makes sense that if I considered an album to be one of the best of all time, I would have it in my possession. Of course, considering that I only own a couple hundred albums, this will limit things a bit and in addition to the aforementioned Led Zeppelin, it will also exclude the Rolling Stones, The Who, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and a number of other bands whose music sounds decidedly better while one is actively hallucinating.

I know that these criteria will offend some folks who consider themselves music purists or have more of an appreciation for the history of recorded music than I do. My goal is not to offend anyone else's choice of music. But hey, if you are offended, fuck you. It's my list.

Twilight

2008-11-22T18:17:00.000-08:00

"Twilight," the movie based on the teen vampire novels of Stephenie Meyer, was released this weekend. People who know me know that I'm a fan of all things vampire. There aren't too many vampire movies I haven't seen, from the silent "Nosferatu" to the shameful "Van Helsing." I've read Dracula, I Am Legend, all the Anne Rice Lestat books, and other vampire novels. I own as many of the Hammer Christopher Lee vampire movies as I've been able to find thus far. Anyone who knows anything about vampire movies knows Christopher Lee was the best. I've watched most small screen adaptations of vampire legend as well, even the recently canceled "Moonlight" which I thought deserved a little more time. I've also read a number of books about historic figures in vampire lore like Vlad the Impaler and Elizabeth Bathory.

Against all this background, I have to say that I'm really sick of the hype around this "Twilight" movie. I'm sick of seeing news reports or teen girls waiting to meet the stars at press junkets. I'm tired of hearing how the book series is so hot and appeals to these same teen girls. Hmm, a novel series about young vampires, a human teen girl who is in love with one of them, and the evil forces and other vampires out to get her. Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

Those who remember "Buffy" know that it was a low budget movie starring Kristy Swanson written by Joss Whedon. The movie itself was never really the fulfillment of Joss Whedon's ideas by when the television series, starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, was created in the WB network several years ago, he was able to tell the story he always wanted to. It was the story of a human teenage girl who ends up falling in love with a vampire despite the fact that her destiny is to kill vampires and demons using strength and skill she develops as a "slayer." While many people may have found the whole premise hokey, this became my favorite television show for all the years it was on. While I loved the whole vampire theme, I thought the show was incredibly well-written, casted, and acted. It even earned a few Emmy nods which was pretty impressive for a show of its type on the fledgling, and now gone, WB network.

With the exception of the fact the Buffy had super strength, the rest of the series seems eerily like "Twilight" to me. Stephenie Meyer says she started writing the series in 2003. I'm sure she'd say she never saw "Buffy" on TV. Don't get me wrong, there have been lots of vampire adaptations before Joss Whedon's version. But to my knowledge, other than "Lost Boys" there wasn't really a story quite like Whedon's.

My problem isn't as much with what appears to be a pretty blatant rip-off of Whedon's idea, but with the fact that I find it interesting that a man was able to write a more compelling, strong, resourceful female lead than a woman was able to write. Whedon's Buffy wasn't some damsel in distress who just swooned at the male vampire's seductive ways. First, she was the central character, not the vampires. The vampires provide the allegory but Buffy was the most interesting character. She was initially an impulsive, reluctant heroine but she sacrificed a normal life to fulfill a destiny not of her own choosing. She was frequently the one in the group who solved problems, saved her friends, and became the undisputed leader of the forces for good. I thought it was probably one of the best female leads ever written, for television or movies. Buffy was the kind of girl you'd want your daughter to grow up to be. A role model if you will.

The heroine of "Twilight" is the typical teenage female character. She pines for the dreamy boy and the fact that he's a vampire just makes him more mysterious, dangerous, and attractive. She doesn't really have a whole lot more to do than function as the damsel in distress and love interest. Typical, underwritten female role. Couldn't a female author come up with a better female lead than this? I think it's amazing that Joss Whedon could write a female character that women can be proud of while Stephenie Meyer writes one that is the cookie-cutter girl we see in basically every pseudo-horror movie.

I'm sure lots of tween girls will go to see the movie this weekend and it will make a bunch of money. Those same girls are probably too young to have seen much of the Buffy television series. In my opinion, they'd be better off to skip the movie and rent the TV series on DVD. They'll still see a compelling drama and love story only they'll see one with a female character they can respect.

Not So Sure

2008-11-15T16:34:00.000-08:00

I rarely go to the mall. In fact, I rarely go shopping other than for groceries. Partly because I'm cheap but also because there's just not really much I need. However, I decided today to get a point and shoot digital camera. I have a nice digital SLR but it's not convenient to take on business trips because I'm already slinging my laptop and suitcase. Since I'm going to LA Monday, I figured it would be nice to pick one up to take with me.

The first thing I noticed is that the traffice was unbelievable today. Given that it is a Saturday, I have to assume most of the people who were out were going to buy things. Most were probably not going to work, especially at the time I was out. For the camera, I went to Best Buy. It was pretty crowded. Plenty of people were looking at laptops, cameras, and, of course, video game systems. I then went to the mall to get a couple of pairs of casual dress pants for the trip. Again, crazy traffic, a packed parking lot, and lots of people with multiple bags in the stores.

Now, I watch the news like everyone else, maybe more than most. I read the paper every day. I know the economy really is in bad shape. Thousands have lost jobs, the home foreclosure rate has not abated, and, supposedly consumer spending is down. Despite these reports, I'm just not so sure. I've commented on this before but when I hear people complain about the economy, it seems like all they really complain about are necessities. They complain about the price of gas, health care, utilities, and keeping a roof over their heads. That being said, I almost never hear them complain about the price of luxuries. By luxury I simply mean anything that's a want rather than a need.

A lot of people at my office seem nervous about the economy. I hear them talking about it as they ride up in the elevator with their $5 Starbucks coffees. I'm convinced that many Americans don't really care much about Wall Street problems because they're not really invested in Wall Street. The savings rate of Americans has fallen to less that 2%. If you have no savings and no really retirement investments, the walloping that stocks are taking really doesn't matter to you, at least as long as you can still use your plastic. I don't really see people denying themselves that much. If they were, our roads would be a little less packed on the weekends.

Look, I know people are entitled to spend their money how they want. I also know that buying a video game or a new $300 cell phone can make people feel good when they are feeling down about their life of the nation. I bought something I didn't really need today. But, I also save more than most people I know and rarely spend money on myself for anything frivolous. The point is that we find ourselves in the current financial mess we face largely because Americans don't deny themselves anything and tend to live way beyond their means. They want to be bigshots and improve their self-esteem by showing off their collections of possessions to friends and neighbors. Our current recession was supposed to be changing that. It was supposed to be teaching people a lesson. We were supposed to "get back to basics" and appreciate the simple things in life. Judging from the behavior I continue to see when I'm out, I'm not so sure.

Waiting for Change

2008-11-12T17:48:00.000-08:00

Monday night I went to the monthly Science Cafe Cleveland at the Great Lakes Brewery tasting room. The topic was the origin of life on earth. There were probably about 150 people there. Usually it's not that well attended but someone obviously told their class to attend because there were some high school kids there with biology books. I don't make it to every Science Cafe but I try to make the ones I can.

What intrigued me about this meeting is that as well attended as it was, I believe there were two black people in attendance. That's it. Just two. Out of 150-200 people. At an event right across from the West Side Market.

Now, I understand some people have probably never heard of the Science Cafe but it's put on through a partnership of several area institutions like the Museum of Natural History and Case Western Reserve University. Certainly some black people attend those institutions. But oddly enough, I used to be a member of the Natural History Museum and I used to attend some of their lectures. Almost no black people attended those either. I've seen plenty of black people take their kids to the museum and school kids get to go every year on field trips.

This is not meant specifically to be a post about racism but all the hoopla over Obama has sensitized me to the issue. As I sat listening to the lecturers, I realized that the gulf between people is going to be difficult to bridge. I'm certain that there are plenty of other types of events largely attended by blacks and maybe some of them wonder why whites don't attend. I think this is the change I'm waiting for. Until there's a little more commonality between the races, I just don't see a lot of the underlying problems getting better. I know I'm painting with a broad brush and that there are whites who love hip hop and blacks who like physics. But in general, we're still a very segregated society and once the dust of the election settles, I don't see it being much different.

Holy Ghost!

2008-11-08T06:31:00.000-08:00

I've noticed that there seem to be a lot more ghost shows on televsion right now. I don't mean shows like "Ghost Whisperer" but shows that feature actual, ahem, ghost hunters. Apparently you really can make a living out of this. Admittedly, I've only watched a couple of the shows but I can say that I've yet to see any compelling evidence for the existence of ghosts on any of these shows. Frankly, if any truly authenticated evidence of ghosts was discovered, it would make the front page of every newspaper in the world. This would be one of the single greatest discoveries of humankind. So given all the ghost hunters and "paranormal" investigators out there, why haven't I seen one major headline about this? Simple:

It's all bullshit.

Why is it that otherwise rational human beings continue to want to believe in this crap? Not only believe, but give away good money to the charlatans who prey upon them? There really is some defective wiring in the human brain that makes us love garbage like ghosts and astrology. It wouldn't bother me so much except for the fact that putting shows like "Ghost Hunters" on TV is a tacit endorsement of the notion that ghosts actually exist. And there's no counterbalance in the media. There's no show that on a weekly basis gets to expose ghost hunters, psychics, and other scam artists for the frauds that they are. I suppose this is because most people are happier to not know the truth. The truth isn't as fun. I guess that's also one reason people continue to believe in God despite the fact that there's less evidence for Him than there is for ghosts. I simply have no patience for this kind of thinking.

Crying? Really?

2008-11-05T09:56:00.000-08:00

If I hear or read about one more person who says he or she was crying when it became clear Obama won the election or when they cast their vote, I'm going to vomit. Really? You actually cried? Can you please explain why?

Nothing "historic" happened in this election. We have an election for President every 4 years. Oh, okay, a half-black man was elected this time. I suppose that's historic but why is no one talking about how shameful it is that this is even an issue? The U.S. has nothing to be proud of. We should instead be embarassed that only in the 21st century have we finally realized that a half black, who acts white enough for us all to be confortable with him, can be President. Jesse Jackson never had a chance and still wouldn't.

As for historic, maybe we can reserve that judgement until we see what actually gets accomplished? Having someone in office who has a black parent may mean something but I don't know what. It doesn't signal the end of racism in this country. Not when well over 90% of black voters voted for Obama. Either they are way smarter than the rest of us or many of them voted purely on race. How exactly does that signal the end of racism?

Oh, I forgot, there's going to be change and hope. Okay. Sure. If anyone thinks for one minute that the Warren Buffet's of this country are going to let Obama significantly increase capital gains taxes, you are out of your mind. Now that he's elected, some people who are wealthier, and perhaps even wiser, than he is are going to pull him aside and say, "Congratulations Barack. We're thrilled for you. Now, about some of those things you said during the campaign. If you do them, this country is going to fall off a cliff and we're going to lose billions. Um, we're not going to let that happen. Understand?"

Sure, Obama will pass through some of what he wants to do. But the aristocracy of this country will only allow "change" that will not significantly undermine their power or diminish their bank accounts. Anyone who thinks otherwise may actually be delusional.

I've said this before but here's my prediction: I'm a single guy with a good salary and no dependents. Four years from now, my real wages will have lost more ground against CEO pay. I will be paying significantly more for electricity, gas, food, health care, and television. My taxes will increase. My job will be no more secure than it is today. Ohio will not see a return of good-paying manufacturing jobs. Cleveland will continue to lose population and tax base and the infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. Some American troops will still be dying in Iraq or Afghanistan. We will have at least 50 million citizens without health insurance. Our students will still be getting their asses kicked by students from every other industrialized country. Poor people in the inner city will still be poor and living in the inner city. Adult onset diabetes will continue to be a rampant and unsolved problem as the obesity rate nears 50%.

Perhaps there is a reason to cry as an American citizen but I don't think it's because we've elected Barack Obama.

Change I Can Believe In

2008-11-04T05:40:00.000-08:00

Finally, it's election day and this two year nightmare of campaigning will be over. As I was getting ready for work today, I saw the empty water jug into which I toss my spare change. About two months ago, I started wrapping some of the change. I got to about $130 and stopped because I got tired of wrapping it. I think I wrapped most of the quarters but I still have a lot of pennies, nickels, and dimes. I figure if I get the rest wrapped I may end up with $200 or so.

As I looked at the jug this morning I realized that this is change I can believe in. Real, tangible change. Not rhetoric or empty promises. Not plans without detail. Not unfunded mandates. Actual change that I can hold in my hand and that serves as legal tender in the United States. This is the only change that matters. No matter who wins the election tonight, my life is unlikely to be altered much. I'm a single, white, male with no dependents who makes a decent W-2 salary. The government loves people like me. We get no breaks and get hammered every tax season. Aside from my mortgage interest, I get no tax breaks. I make too much money to get any government benefits and too little money to have slick lawyers and accountants find me loopholes. I have no children so I don't get paid to procreate. I simply pay, and pay, and pay. Neither candidate is going to change this.

All that matters to me is the money I can hold in my hands and it's likely that whoever gets elected, somehow I'll be holding less of it.

Men Get Cancer Too

2008-10-30T05:41:00.000-07:00

Yesterday there was yet another story in the Plain Dealer about women dealing with cancer. This time the story was about how to feel better by doing things to look better such as picking out the right wig, applying makeup, etc. I don't wish cancer on anyone. It's a horrendous disease. But I couldn't help but think as I read yet another article about the impact of cancer on women that we seem to forget that men get cancer too. Maybe it's working in the National City Building which, for the past month, has been bathed in the glow of pink lighting in support of breast cancer awareness. Maybe it's the pink ribbons on cars or the pink appliances that have been advertised in store circulars but it seems to me that a visitor from another world would think, aside from the occasional nod to prostate cancer, that cancer is a woman's disease. Again, my point is not to minimize the prevalence or impact of cancer in women. But by constantly reminding us of it, particularly breast cancer, we have effectively minimized the prevalence and impact of cancer on men and even children.

My grandfather died of stomach cancer. It was enough years ago that I can't tell you how many years ago it was but I was basically an adult when it happened. My grandfather was a short man with a rigid stature that many immigrants had when they came to this country proud of their heritage but humbled as a newcomer. He worked out at the YMCA on 25th street religiously. When I was old enough, he sometimes took me with him. I didn't really work out. Mostly I shot baskets while he jogged for miles. We'd lift a few weights in what really was the definition of the dank, musty gym. The YMCA had incredibly old equipment. An antique rowing machine, some barbells, and a medicine ball that was actually stitched together. The medicine ball was my favorite. Frankly, some of the other equipment reminded me too much of tools of the Inquisition for me to use. Still even as a young teen, I was impressed that my grandpa was in such good shape. Better shape than me.

One year, he decided that he wanted to go and visit relatives in Czechoslovakia. He had never been there but apparently decided he wanted to visit the remaining family he had who might know him . My grandmother had no desire to do this and refused to go so he went by himself. For a couple weeks, he drank a lot and ate fatty foods and homemade sausages common in Eastern European countries. Not long after he returned, he noticed a change in his appetite and in the way food tasted to him. After a number of tests he was diagnosed with stomach cancer. Exploratory surgery revealed that the cancer was so widespread that the doctors merely stitched him back up and he began chemotherapy. My once stubbornly proud and healthy grandfather withered away within about six months. For the last week or so, he was in a tertiary nursing home. As cliche as it may sound, he died as a shell of the man who used to take me to the gym.

My grandpa was never as affectionate as my grandma but we were close to him nonetheless. He really loved his grandchildren. You could just tell by the way he tried to teach us things or how he would leave $.50 for each of us on the living room table when we visited every week. I miss him and the cancer that took him from us was every bit as evil as the lymphoma that took my grandmother many years later. We certainly need to do all we can to help free everyone from this unbelievably awful disease but maybe, just sometimes, we can remind ourselves and the media than men get cancer too.

Gun Fun

2008-10-26T18:19:00.001-07:00

Saturday I went to a gun and knife show with my brother. I've been looking to get a new gun and I think I'm interested in the Rossi .38 pictured here. I've been target shooting for a few years and own a .22 semiautomatic target pistol. Target shooting is oddly relaxing. You can't focus on anything else. You, and typically several other people, are standing in a fairly small room with various guns and lots of live ammo. You need to concentrate and be cautious.

That being said, gun shows are an odd experience. It is just surreal to walk around in a building full of knives and guns for sale to anyone who paid the $6 entrance fee. It's even more disconcerting to walk past so many people with handguns strapped to them and semiautomatic rifles slung over their shoulders. I know that most people who buy guns buy them as a hobby, for hunting, collecting, or target shooting. Of course, that's most people. It's the other ones I worry about. Case in point, see this story.

I Loathe Politics

2008-10-23T07:06:00.000-07:00

I saw a story this morning that the French Archives are releasing a short video interview with John McCain that was conducted by a French reporter during his captivity in Vietnam. Apparently, snippets of the interview have been circulating for some time but this is the first time the whole video is being released to the press.

Now, I don't know why the video is being released now but no matter what official explanation is being given, it's hard for me to believe there isn't some political motive behind it, or at least part of it. The video could have been released anytime. A year ago, a year from now, six months ago. That is is being released two weeks before the presidential election seems awfully convenient to me. There's no way anyone can watch any of the video or stills of McCain as a POW and not feel some sympathy for him. He went through a horrendous experience many of us would not have survived.

There's also no way anyone can deny that such sympathy can have an effect on the polls, likely in the direction of giving McCain a boost. Now I know that everyone will deny that this has anything to do with it and McCain supporters will say the timing of the release is simply coincidence but I just don't buy it. I don't know whether McCain himself, or any people in powerful positions in his campaign, had anything to do with the release but he certainly isn't going to be upset about it or any bump he gets as a result. If there is even a hint of political motivation behind this release, then that is absolutely despicable.

Death of the Free Market

2008-10-22T05:58:00.000-07:00

I've come to a point in my life, later than some and earlier than others, where I realized that a lot about America, maybe most of it, is illusion. I truly don't believe that the America many of us believe in exists, or ever existed. The latest casualty to me is the free market, or at least politician support of the free market.

Over the last few years, we've heard a lot about the free market, privatization, capitalism, etc. We've heard a lot about it because President Bush, and Republicans in general, are big supporters of these notions, supposedly. These folks, and many conservative leaning pundits like Bill O-Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity, believe in this both on the macro economic scale and on the micro level of the individual. They seem to believe that both individuals and companies should compete and whoever wins, well, they were better somehow and deserved to win. Kind of a funny notion for folks who often criticize Darwinian notions of natural selection and evolution.

Regardless, on a macro scale, the notion is that private sector competition is good and that it leads to higher quality, lower prices, etc. In theory, this is a fine idea. But what it also means is that some companies and private entities will not succeed. It doesn't matter if they are a historic name or have friends in high places. If they can't cut it in the marketplace, then they're done. Too bad. But that's the ruthlessness of the the jungle.

Ah, but the problem is that the same folks who worship at the altar of the free market economy don't really believe in it. They believe that it only applies in some circumstances and not others. They believe it only applies to some companies and not others. So when Obama wants to tax higher earners and corporations and give tax breaks to moderate and low earners, it's socialism. However, when we provide special low-interest loans to General Motors, that's just fine and dandy. When we provide billions in public dollars to bail out investment firms and banks, that's not welfare. It's just prudent fiscal policy. It's not a free market economy when we tinker with it and prop up entities that would otherwise whither and die.

And it's not just national. On the local level, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) recently granted the gas companies the ability to raise delivery rates for gas to consumers. The rate increase will not be based on usage so folks living in tiny houses or apartments will pay the same delivery charge as LeBron James will pay in his castle. The gas companies wanted this increase because, after years of prodding people to do so, customers actually began to conserve, especially as gas prices shot up. People lowered thermostats, bought energy efficient appliances, etc., and started using less gas. Given this, the gas companies have no convenient way to sustain there profit margin so they pressured the PUCO for this increase. They originally proposed an even more egregious pricing scheme but there was enough public outrage to end that one. Still, the end result is that people are going to pay more for natural gas service even if they've been doing what they can to conserve.

This is ridiculous. To me, it is nothing short of price fixing. That is not the free market. I used to own a company that primarily scanned documents for lawfirms. Over time, that service became a commodity and prices dropped precipitously. I didn't like that. I liked it much better when I was making a higher profit margin. But I couldn't just say to customers that I was now going to implement a document pick-up charge to offset my other losses. I couldn't do that because my industry doesn't have a PUCO. My competitors, who might have been better able to absorb the scanning price decrease, would not institute additional charges and I'd be out of business. That's how the free market works. I was a small company. No one cared if I survived or not. I didn't contribute to local political campaigns. I didn't have any lobbyists. Politicians like the free market for people like me.

The fact is that the free market just doesn't apply to certain entities. And if it doesn't apply to some, then it really doesn't apply to any. It's just another fallacy in this joke of a nation, along with free speech and the idea that any American can grow up to be president. Lately, my best friend has reminded me of George Carlin's notion that really all you can do about any of this is stand back and laugh. Carlin acknowledged that it was sad to see a nation of such promise chronically underachieve but he ended up realizing that instead of being sad or angry, you just have to enjoy the show. I'm not there yet but I'm getting closer. A post like this would have riled me up a few months ago. Now I just think it's comical that anyone still believes in any of this crap.

It's Over Johnny

2008-10-20T06:26:00.001-07:00

Well, if you believe anyone in the media, it's looking more and more like Obama will be our next president. I know a lot of people who say they're still undecided but I think it won't make a difference. Unless something major happens in the next two weeks, I think it's likely Obama will get in, maybe in a landslide.

Then things get interesting. It will be time to see if all the faith from those who have worshipped at the Obama altar for two years is justified. Again, I don't have any particular problem with Obama but as the campaign has progressed, I think some of the sheen has worn off of him. He has provided no more specifics for dealing with problems than McCain has and he has also successfully skirted the difficult issues. So, like most elections, I think this will simply come down to what people believe in. Those who believe that basic Republican tenets are the best will vote for McCain. Those who buy into the Democratic philosophy will vote for Obama. The reason Obama will likely win is because when people are hurting, as many are now, they usually blame the party in charge.

Still, it will be interesting to see what Obama can get done. It's likely he won't be able to blame politics for any failures. The prediction now is that Democrats will not only lead the House and Senate but may even have the magic number in the Senate where they can basically do whatever they want. One potential problem for Obama is that a lot of his proposals are paid for by taxing high income individuals and capital gains. Unfotunately, the faltering economy has wiped out most capital gains earnings for a while. People are going to be declaring losses on investments so there won't be nearly as much for Obama to tax. The current economic mess is also likely to decrease the population of people making over $250K per year, another key target for Obama's payment plan.

No matter who you want to blame for the current financial crisis, it is going to have a dramatic influence on the early period of the next administration. Neither Obama nor McCain has done a good job of elucidating how this is going to specifically influence their potential policies and behaviors. Neither has demonstrated a firm grasp of the science behind climate change or alternative energy. The economy has dominated so much that we haven't even heard a lot about foreign policy, Social Security reform, the influence of technology on jobs and economy, or other pressing issues the country is facing.

I think it's likely Obama will win. I don't have a problem with that. I just hope that all the people who believe in him so much with so little evidence thus far will actually hold his feet to the fire and not make excuses if he fails to deliver. All we've heard about in this campaign is leadership. A true leader gets things done. A true leader does not make excuses. A true leader is able to see the opportunities in crisis and take advantage of them. Let's hope we're electing a leader.

Chuck Baldwin for President!

2008-10-13T18:00:00.000-07:00

Wow. I received my absentee ballot in the mail late last week and tonight I actually looked at it. I was amazed at how many presidential candidates there are. I've never heard of these people, well except for Ralph Nader. So, listing president and then vice president, here are your choices in a couple of weeks (except for the big two of course):

Chuck Baldwin, Darrell Castle - Constitution Party
Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root - Libertarian Party of Ohio
Richard Duncan, Ricky Johnson - No party listed
Cynthia McKinney, Rosa Clemente - Green Party
Brian Moore, Stewart Alexander - Socialist Party
Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez - No party listed

I think I like Vice President Ricky.

Seriously, this points out to me the ridiculous illusion of democracy in this country. It's a fallacy that parents tell their children when they say anyone can grow up to be president. Only Republicans or Democrats can be president and because those two parties control the commission for presidential debates, you the voting public do not even get to hear what any of the candidates above have to say. Maybe they're all buffoons. Maybe they have some great ideas. The problem is that we'll never know. Sometimes America just doesn't get it right.

A Capitol Idea

2008-10-06T08:57:00.000-07:00

I just can't get away from politics. I'm in DC for the next three days for work. I have to do some training for the office here. It should be pretty smooth. I like DC. It's a fun place to visit, although I won't have much time for sight-seeing this trip. Still the airport is always an adventure. More than half the people waiting for the plane we're either on their Blackberrys or their laptops. Now, I could have pulled my laptop out and looked cool too but I just don't have this kind of ego. This was at 6:30 in the morning. How many emails could these people be receiving?

The fact is that too many people today are just too self-important. There are very few people who need to constantly be in touch or checking email. People who run nuclear power plants probably need to be accessible. Of course, doctors also need to be available. And the president. That's really about it. I'd venture to say most of the people sitting in the airport were just business tools. I've really come to think that the only way these people can feel good about their mind-numbing jobs is to stay connected all the time to establish a false sense of their indispensibility.

Speaking of Sarah Palin, why do some women like her as a candidate? A lot of women think it's great to have a woman running for such a powerful office. Did they still think that after her winking and coquettish performance in the debate? Everyone was worried about Biden potentially patronizing her. He didn't have to because she did it to herself. I'm not a woman but doesn't it set women back a ways when they finally get someone to such a potentially high level and then she resorts to winking and cutesy behavior when she's in over her head? Doesn't that reinforce sexist views of women? I don't know. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I'm 43 years old and women do not, nor will they ever, make any sense to me.

Veep Debate

2008-10-03T06:04:00.000-07:00

So I tried to watch the vice presidential debate last night. I really did. In the end it was hard to stomach. I wanted to see Joe Biden debate Sarah Palin, not Joe and Sarah debate about McCain and Obama. The difference is subtle but important. There are those who believe that if McCain wins, Sarah Palin could be president because McCain might not survive 4 years in office. Others assert that if Obama wins, some lunatic racist will assassinate him and Biden would be president. Thus, for me, I wanted to hear what Joe and Sarah believe and I wanted to see them challenge each other. I didn’t see that and, for the second debate in a row, I saw candidates not answer the questions they were asked. My thoughts in a nutshell:

On Sarah Palin –
1. She is attractive. I know that bothers people but when she walked out on stage she looked good in that suit and, just for a moment, every man in America watching the debate thought the same thing.
2. He voice is absolutely grating.
3. I cannot stand her stupid, folksy way of talking. I don’t want a vice president talking to foreign leaders saying things like “darn tootin’.” Okay she didn’t actually say that but she might as well have. People say this is her being “real.” Please, that schtick is so well rehearsed I can’t believe anyone falls for it. She was told to talk like this, plain and simple.
4. If she says “maverick” one more time I’m going to throw the toaster at my TV.
5. Palin is the only candidate I know who gets credit just for trying. Everyone is saying she scored just by not screwing up. Wow. I love the way America cherishes its mediocrity.
6. Nothing I saw last night change my opinion that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Yes, she parroted back all the buzzwords and talking points. No surprise there. She’s been practically sequestered and in boot camp for several weeks. But you could tell that if she was actually probed about anything she said, she’d be completely lost.

On Joe Biden –
1. He looks older than I thought.
2. While he did make his points without droning on like he usually does, he was not always coherent. I thought that too many times he tried to throw too much into one short answer rather than simply picking one main theme and expounding on it.
3. There were several places where I was just dying for him to challenge Palin but he just wouldn’t do it. I’m sure that’s how he was instructed but it was disappointing and I think he lost points for it.
4. He came across like a slick career politician. He actually has a more humble lifestyle and finances than most career politicians. He’s more like Palin in that regard but I didn’t think it showed as much.
5. To be honest, he also did nothing to instill confidence in me. Like Palin, he seems like an ok guy. But he doesn’t have any real charisma. He doesn’t strike me as a leader.

I think it’s going to be another disappointing election. I have not seen one great president in my lifetime. None of the presidents who’ve held office while I’ve been alive will go down as a Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, or Truman. Not one. Like those guys or hate them, they were leaders. There’s no one like that on either ticket this year.

Wow

2008-09-30T06:15:00.000-07:00

I watched the season premiere of Chuck last night. I didn't think it was possible for Yvonne Strahovski (my #2 woman below) to become even more attractive. I was wrong. I honestly don't know how Zachary Levi can do scenes with her and remember his lines. She is absolutely amazing.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

2008-09-28T15:46:00.000-07:00

Last night I went out with my best friend. For a change, we went to the Warehouse District. We haven't hung out down there for a long time. We ended up going to several bars in the area and it was pretty much the saem as I remembered it from years ago. Basically, a lot of people trying to look to cool for the room. It seemed to me that there were only two types of guys in the bars. One is the barrel-chested, often shaved-head white guy. These guy have bodies that you just don't regularly see in nature. It's as if West 6th street also houses some secret underground steroid testing facility. And I've had enough of the bald trend.

The other type of guy is the skinnier, half-buttoned shirt guy who is usually wearing some sort of necklace. The necklace is apparently some sort of tribal adornment that seems to communicate the following sentiment: "Ladies, I may look like a dork but this necklace indicates that I'm really a rebellious bad boy. Don't you want to sleep with me?" This look seems to be favored by foreign looking men, though some white boys have adopted and bastardized the look, as they've done with urban fashion.

There were also really only two types of women. Well, actually one main type and then a subtype. The main type is women who do not seem to know their actual dress size and appear to pick outfits only on the basis of having just enough fabric to hold in their boobs until some pre-determined time in the evening when they come spilling out. Now, being a guy, I'm not opposed to a bit of cleavage but there's a point where it's tasteful and attractive and then there's the Warehouse District. In most of the animal kingdom it's the men who have to put on a show to attract women but I've seen dairy farms with fewer udders on display than I saw last night. It might not have been too bad if the women also weren't trying to squeeze size 12 butts into size 4 skirts.

The subset of woman is the one who often actually looks nice. She picks a dress that fits and, interestingly, it seems to me that this subgroup is also thinner. However, there are usually two problems. First, they don't realize that they are basically going to dive bars in downtown Cleveland and not to the prom. Then again, I guess those prom dresses can get pretty expensive so you might as well get some extra use out of them. The second problem is that many of these women simply can't walk in heels. If you're going to wear high heels and a gown you need to have decent posture and be able walk gracefully, not clomp around like a horse bent over like Quasimodo.

all in all it was a fun night. It reminded me of when we used to hang out in the Warehouse District 10-15 years ago, mainly because it hasn't changed. It's still a fun place to people watch. That and the overpriced, watered down drinks make it a true Cleveland destination.

Letterman Top 10

2008-09-26T09:03:00.000-07:00

Okay, I said I was going to stop with the political talk but seeing David Letterman's Top Ten list form last night cracked me up so I had to post it. These are:

Top Ten Surprising Facts About Sarah Palin presented by residents of Wasilla, Alaska

10. Sometimes Sarah calls John McCain "grandpa"

9. She stole that sexy librarian look from me-Grasshopper Aviation Pilot, Dave Glenn

8. Recently passed legislation to build a bridge to Funkytown

7. Does great impression of Tina Fey

6. Favorite meal: moose nuggets and beaver jerky

5. Working on "Knight Rider" spin-off about a talking snowmobile

4. Favorite book? "Late Show Fun Facts" -- available at fine stores everywhere

3. Once spent a week in the hospital after attempting to put lipstick on a pit bull

2. To improve her foreign policy experience, she recently went to the International House of Pancakes

1. Only person I know who's not afraid to go hunting with Dick Cheney

I particularly like # 10 and #2.

Veeps

2008-09-24T05:36:00.000-07:00

Anyone who reads this blog noticed that lately I did some fluff posts on women I like. This was by design. I realized that I was writing all the time about politics and problems I see facing the nation and, frankly, it was getting me down. So I decided to have a little more fun with the blog and just write about something frivolous. I'm going to make an effort to keep doing that but I have to just write one more post about these vice-presidential nominees because it's really bothering me and there are a couple of points that I'm just not hearing from the national media or pundits.

First, the choice of running mate is really the first executive decision the presidential hopefuls make so it is an important decision. Obama correctly identified that he is lacking in experience, both domestic and abroad, so he picked a long-time senator in Joe Biden. It's not a sexy pick. Joe Biden doesn't really excite anyone. But he does compliment Obama in some ways and strengthen experience on the ticket. McCain, after all the early talk about Obama having no track record (read: experience) picks someone with arguably less national experience than Obama. Sarah Palin does not do anything to strengthen the Republican ticket except for the fact that, unlike Biden, she is a sexy pick. She's young, energetic, and relatively well-spoken when properly prepped. More importantly, she's a woman and a mom which is why McCain picked her. This was nothing more than a transparent ploy to grab some Hillary supporters and, to McCain's credit, it's worked. So in their first executive decision, Obama picks someone not as popular but who fills in some gaps in his resume. McCain picks a former beauty queen and sports anchor. Doesn't exactly instill confidence in his ability to fill a cabinet with the best people for the job.

Now, to my second point, Republicans have rallied around the Palin pick and insisted that she is qualified and is a terrific pick. I haven't heard anyone ask this, but if Palin was such a great pick, why wasn't she on anybody's short list before McCain announced her? Why was she a "surprise pick?" Prior to the conventions and announcement of veep selections, I saw a lot of pundits inthe media speculating on the most likely vice-presidential picks of both nominees. Not once did I hear the name Sarah Palin. None of the Republican representatives that I heard mentioned her as even a possible running mate, let alone the leading candidate or the best choice. Now, I obviously don't read every newspaper or watch every news broadcast so it's possible that someone, somewhere, sometime, mentioned Palin as a running mate. Still I do read the local paper daily, almost always watch NBC nightly news, and at least tune into some other news programs off and on throughout the week. I never heard or read a single article that said Sarah Palin was a leading choice for the job.

So if I never heard this, even from Republican strategists, what does that say? To me, it says she wasn't even on the radar of people supposedly knowledgeable about these things. I would further suggest that she wasn't on their radar because none of them considered her qualified, or at least they considered her far, far down on the list of qualified people. Again, her selection was widely reported as a "surprise." How could it be such a surprise if she was so darned qualified? If she truly is the best the Republicans have to offer as the second most powerful person in the world, how come nobody knew?

I think we know the answer. I'm still not enamored with either candidate and the current financial mess we're in is going to make life difficult for whoever gets elected. But this is my last post about the election. I simply can't continue to spend much time thinking about the stupidity of American voters. It's going to make my head explode.

Women I Like - #1 - Morena Baccarin

2008-09-20T18:21:00.000-07:00

There's several women I like that I didn't put in this top five. Rachel Bilson, Emma Watson, Summer Glau, Mila Kunis, Adriana Lima. They all could have been in my top 5 for various reasons. Again, this is just a fun exercise but at least over the last year, Morena Baccarin has probably been my number 1 woman that I find attractive. The odd thing is that I don't even know if she's on any televsion shows anymore. She's been on a few different shows but I first saw her on re-runs of Firefly.

Firefly was a show created by Joss Whedon who, small world, also created Buffy the Vampire Slayer which was my favorite show while it was on. Firefly was like a science fiction western. Western archetype characters flying around in a spaceship doing whatever is necessary to make money. Interestingly enough, the guy who played the tough guy of the crew is now on the show Chuck with my number 2 woman below.

I never watched Firefly during it's initial run but during last Winter and Spring I caught re-runs of it. It was actually more entertaining than I expected. Not something I'd plan my evening around but a good show. Morena Baccarin played a "companion," basically a very high-end escort. I'll admit that some of the costumes she wore aided in my attraction to her but she is simply strinkingly beautiful. She is Brazilian, which contributes to the dark features that I find so attractive (Adriana Lima is also Brazilian). She has an amazing smile, fabulous hair, and beautiful eyes. I don't really know much about her but I know that I couldn't take my eyes off her while she was onscreen.

Women I Like - #2 - Yvonne Strahovski

2008-09-16T17:00:00.000-07:00

Purely by accident I found myself watching the NBC show Chuck last season. It's about a guy who works at a Best Buy like place who accidentally gets a top secret government database downloaded into his brain. Since the data is useful, and secret, two spies are assigned to watch him and, of course, he gets into all sorts of trouble helping them out. Yvonne Strahovski, who I never heard of before this show, plays one of the spies, Sarah. Her cover is to act like his girlfriend. I actually like the show. It's pretty witty, the dialog is good, and as far fetched as the plot is, the characters still seem real somehow. The ensemble cast is pretty talented on the whole and I hope the show stays on for a while.

That being said, I totally fell for Yvonne while watching this show. She has the imperfect teeth thing going on that I just love. She's very pretty but somehow seems like a girl next door. Plus, she kicks ass and anyone who recalls my passion for Buffy the Vampire Slayer knows I love hot women who kick ass. Yvonne also looks really cute in the pigtails she wears in her disguise as a counter girl in the hot dog restaurant next to the fake Best Buy. I can't quite put a finger on why I like her so much. Her physical appearance is definitely my type but I think she really plays her character with nuance. She tough but vulnerable. Wounded but really sweet. The confidence of her character is still wrapped up in a really feminine package. I guess I'd like to think Yvonne has some of those same qualities and, to me, it's really attractive.

Women I Like - #3 - Kate Beckinsale

2008-09-13T18:33:00.000-07:00

Okay, this one will really piss off my best friend, Jim. We've talked about Kate Beckinsale before and she does absolutely nothing for him. But I can't help it. You know you find a woman attractive when you'll sit through crappy movies just to watch her and Kate has been in her share of crappy movies. I first started liking her in the Underworld movies. Of course she was playing a vampire and if you combine vampires and beautiful, thin brunettes you'll pretty much be guaranteed to have me watching. The Underworld movies weren't half-bad but then Kate was in Van Helsing. More vampires but practically unwatchable, even for a vampire lover like myself. Still I've seen the movie once all the way through and have watched significant portions several other times, just to watch her. I thought she was very cute in Serendipity with John Cusack, and the movie was certainly better than Van Helsing but it was a Cusack vehicle so there were too many scenes she wasn't in.

Now here's how bad it gets with me and Kate. I've actually seen major portions of Click, the abominable Adam Sandler movie, several times. She plays his wife. As if. Man, she just looks so beautiful in that movie. And she's just playing a regular person with no superpowers which makes it even better. Everyone knows I hate Adam Sandler and that I think his movies absolutely blow, maybe just a notch above Rob Schneider movies. Still, I'll sit through segments of this piece of crap over and over again just to see Kate in her cute cotton pj's.

Women I Like - #4 - Megyn Kelly

2008-09-12T21:52:00.000-07:00

No, I don't have a thing for women named Megyn. But whenever I'm channel surfing and Megyn Kelly is on Fox News, I'll stop and watch. I'm not proud of myself but it is what is is. You never can feel like you really know any person on TV or in the movies but there are a few reasons I like Megyn Kelly. I find her attractive. She's an attorney and while I don't hold that particular profession in any special regard, it at least means she's educated. She's very lively and she actually seems like she'd be fun. It would be interesting to sit across the table from someone who's really up on current events, has definite opinions, is intelligent, and then look at her and realize she's also incredibly hot. I can't get a clear read on her political leanings despite the fact that she's on Fox and if she's too conservative I couldn't last long with her but I think she'd be fun to date.

Five Questions

2008-09-11T10:45:00.000-07:00

Hmm...seems I've been tagged by Blueberry to answer the five questions. Five isn't so bad. I used to hate the old email ones where you'd have to answer thirty questions. Without further ado:

Where was I 10 years ago: Boy, everyone who knows me knows I have a piss-poor recollection of anything in the past. I just rarely think about it and once it's done it's done. Ten years ago today, I was still working as a shrink in Medina, OH. Only a couple months from getting fired. Did I know it was coming ten years ago today. I don't think so. Not yet...

What's on my ToDo list today: Work, obviously. Cutting my lawn if I can beat the rain. Pruning my cherry tree. Trying to not have to do any work from home tonight.

Favorite Number: Never thought about it. It might be 13 because I like the whole evil connotation.

Five Places I've Lived: Well, I'm boring as hell and have only lived in Ohio. Nothing exciting like Greece or Hawaii. In fact, I think I've only lived in 4 places - Parma, OH; Kent, OH; North Royalton, OH; and Athens, OH

Bad Habits: Not being very spontaneous; getting sucked into watching too much TV; always missing phone calls.

Women I Like - #5 - Megan Fox

2008-09-09T17:22:00.000-07:00

As I've said on here many times, I'm not much for celebrities. I think acting is overrated as a profession and definitely overpaid. I also think that most celebrities people think are so gorgeous, men or women, are really very average and that you see more attractive people in the average mall. That being said, I still think it's fun to think about who is my type in Hollywood. By my type, I basically mean physically since I don't know anything about these women and my guess is that I couldn't stand to be around them for more than a day. Still, there are some celebrities I find attractive. I don't think any of them are "A-list" stars but I figured I'd count down my top five just for fun.

At number 5 is Megan Fox. Now, here's the thing about Megan Fox. She normally wears way more makeup than a women of her age needs. She's only in her early twenties and her face is beautiful. She has especially great eyes. The color and shape are fantastic. She also has a killer figure but, again, she's very young. In many photos I don't think she looks as pretty as she actually is because she's too glammed up. She also has several absolutely silly tattoos. And she's dating Brian Austin Green. Yes, THAT Brian Austin Green. Okay, so she doesn't seem like the brightest bulb in the chandelier based on these facts but I'm going to give her a bit of a pass because she's so young. And anyway, this is pretty much about women I find beautiful so I can imagine her without Brian for a while. She needs to lay off the makeup and look a little more dirty and glowing, like a girl her age. Like she does in the picture above from the movie Transformers. When I saw her in that movie, that was it for me. She can act all stupid for a bit because that movie earned her a free pass with me, at least for a little while.

Lean Cuisine

2008-09-08T06:01:00.000-07:00

I'm so sick of seeing fat broads at my work eating Lean Cuisine. What's the point? You eat a fucking diet pizza and then eat Hershey's Kisses at your desk all day. Or go home and eat a bunch of crap and sit on your ass. Why bother? Just eat what you fucking like. Unless you're going to be seriously committed to getting in shape, eating Lean Cuisine and drinking Diet Coke isn't going to do a damn thing to shrink the size of your ass. And these people are not committed. No one who truly gives a damn about their appearance is 40-50lbs overweight by accident.

I went to see a series of plays this weekend based on Shakespeare's sonnets. Every actress in the production was overweight. None would be considered obese but, because of the costuming, it was easy to tell that every one of them would likely be considered overweight by their doctors. And this was a college theater so all of the actors were in their early 20s. You should be in the best shape of your life in your early 20s. It doesn't get any better than those years. If you already have a fat butt and thighs when you're 21, you can't imagine what it will be like when you're my age. We have more "lean" and "diet" foods available than ever before in this country but we just keep getting bigger and bigger. Go figure. I say just stop the charade and eat whatever you want. There's really no point in trying to fool yourself by buying Lean Cuisine.

Where's the Intellect?

2008-09-04T17:52:00.000-07:00

A lot of people at my workplace are excited and energized about the upcoming presidential election. I realized today that the ones chatting most about it are in their late 20s and early 30s. I remember being that age and thinking that this stuff really mattered. That being a Republican or Democrat was an important decision or that one candidate was clearly superior to another. Somehow as you get older, you see things a bit differently.

A lot of Americans were excited by Sarah Palin's VP speech at the convention last night. Of course the audience in attendance was. If she couldn't win over all the Republicans in attendance, she'd really have problems. Similarly, people were gushing over Obama's speech last week, at least until McCain brilliantly stole his thunder with the Palin pick. The closer it gets to the election, the less impressed I am with either candidacy.

On the third page of the Plain Dealer today was a story about a huge ice shelf breaking loose from Canada and basically disappearing. A few days ago, the paper ran a story about the dramatic ice loss in the Arctic. While there's still a debate about how much of these changes are due to man and how much is simply a natural cycle, every scientist worth her salt agrees that there are indisputable signs of global warming. I haven't heard either candidate really discussing this.

Lawrence Krauss, former chair of the Case Western Reserve physics department, has formed a group calling for the candidates to debate or at least answer a series of specific questions relating to scientific topics of high importance to the world of the 21st century. So far I haven't heard either candidate comment on this proposal. The vulture media, who pick the bones of any trivial tidbit in this election, have not given the proposal any real attention. So I expect that we'll have the same toothless, meaningless debates we've grown accustomed to.

I suspect some of this has to do with the American public. We're a largely ignorant, poorly read, and poorly informed citizenry. Asking intelligent questions of our candidates might make us feel dumb. Who's going to ask the questions? Brian Williams? Katie Couric? Chris Matthews? These puppetheads can barely read off their teleprompters. If you want an intelligent discussion, you have to have knowledgeable people asking the questions. They would know how to follow-up. They would know if the answer given is B.S. But scientists aren't respected in this country. Calling someone an "Einstein" is often used as an insult. This despite the fact that we rely on science from the minute we wake until we go to sleep again, and even while sleeping.

Frankly, I think all four people who are the contenders in this race are intellectual lightweights and I'm tired of having leaders who are lightweights. Yes, they have college degrees. Yes, they went to good schools. But you don't have to be intelligent to graduate from college. You simply have to be good at the kinds of tasks colleges expect you to complete. I'd like, just once in my life, to see a candidate not resort to sound bites or pre-packaged statements that simply serve as the crack that satisfies a nation addicted to non-answers. We have to demand more but when I look around me and see how people, even people I think are pretty bright, are so excitedly satisfied with what they are already getting, I don't have much hope.

Really, thus far, has Obama or McCain or Palin or Biden actually said anything? Have any of them really addressed any of your concerns? Have they truly laid out any specific plans to address any of the most pressing issues of our time? Sure, we've heard some good speeches and, depending on your political bent, we've had some feel-good moments with whatever candidate we like. But do you honestly believe, deep down in your heart and mind, that either of these candidates is going to make a real difference in the problems we face? I don't. I don't even really believe that either of them have more than a cursory understanding of the issues. I think they are career politicians who have spent their lives not analyzing and researching issues but working on getting re-elected and expanding their sphere of influence.

I suppose it will always be this way. People who care about solving problems are out there solving them, not running for elective office. Most scientists I know or have listened to have an aversion to politics. That's because the majority of career politicians are lawyers and lawyers are not problem solvers. They make their money debating. They often have a vested interest in not compromising. They are in many ways rewarded for ego. Much of this is in polar opposition to the scientific community where collaboration is often rewarded, the truth is the end goal, and the biggest egos can be rapidly deflated if the person is unethical or dishonest. As I get older, I crave intellectual discourse. I'm tired of surface level discussions and pat, palliative answers from our supposed "leaders." Our country, indeed our world, faces significant challenges and we need real engagement from the people who are going to wield the power to address these challenges. Thus far, I'm not impressed with the intellect of either Obama or McCain. Perhaps that's unfair. I don't know either man and they may both be intellectually superior. Maybe they just don't care.

Sarah Palin and Republican Hypocrisy

2008-09-03T05:52:00.000-07:00

I've come to a point in this election season where I really don't care who gets elected. Yes, I think there are differences between Obama and McCain and yes, I think those differences will impact me in various ways. But overall, I think neither person will do much to improve the lot of the average American. I think our expenses will go up, our net worth will go down, we'll still be insecure about health care and our eventual retirement, and America's status as a world leader will continue its slow decline. The reasons those things will happen will be different depending on who is sitting in the White House but they will happen nonetheless.

That being said, the hypocrisy demonstrated by many Republican faithfuls this week is really irritating to me. As anyone with ears now knows, McCain's VP choice, Sarah Palin, acknowledged that her 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant and unmarried. Republicans have been tripping over themselves to state that while this must be difficult for the Palin family, it shows how "real" they are and demonstrates their pro-life commitment. They also said that this is a personal issue that has nothing to do with the election.

Okay, let's take the first part of this argument. There is NO WAY such a free pass would have been given by conservatives to Barack Obama, or any Democratic nominee, if his or her daughter was in the same predicament. If Hillary had been the nominee and Chelsea was 17 and pregnant, conservatives would have been beside themselves raving about "liberal values" and what a poor example this would be for the nation. Given that Obama is half black, if his daughter would be pregnant, it would be a shit storm for Republicans. Not only would they see it as the typical immorality of the left but they'd also see it as further confirmation of the irresponsible child bearing behavior of young black women. But because it's Sarah Palin, one of there own, she gets a pass. It's not an embarrassment, it's a sign of strength.

In the end, I don't give a rat's ass what happens in the Palin family or that Bristol likes to ride the hobby horse. However, the Republican's also suggest that this has nothing to do with the election and I disagree. Sarah Palin is a staunch supporter of abstinence only education and public policy. Therefore, what has happened in her own family is relevant. There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from her daughter's pregnancy. Either Sarah and her husband really don't believe in abstinence and didn't convery that message to their children or they did convey it and it just didn't matter. If the first is true, then Sarah is dishonest and if the second is true she's just ignorant. My guess is that it's the second. I'm sure she didn't want her unwed daughter getting pregnant. Thus she has to admit that teaching abstinence doesn't work. If she can't even control what happens in her own home, and it's pretty tough with a teenager, how can she actually believe that such programs will work in the larger community where the people preaching it have even less contact with the kids than Sarah presumably had with Bristol? To continue to pursue a public policy that you know to be untenable is idiotic and demonstrates a clear lack of judgment.

Again, just my opinion. I don't have an axe to grind about this. I'm just tired of people, both in public life and in my own personal life, being dishonest and hypocritical and having this behavior consistently excused. I'm not willing to just listen to it anymore.

Things I Learned at the Cleveland Air Show

2008-09-01T16:15:00.000-07:00

I went to the Air Show with my dad on Sunday and we had a really good time. For different reasons, 2008 hasn't been an easy year for my dad or I but from everything my mom and sister said, my dad really enjoyed it and was glad that I took him. That made it worth it for me. While there, I also learned the following:

1. I will never grow tired of watching and listening to planes with 40,000+ pounds of thrust. There is nothing that sounds like a fighter jet and there is no cooler sight than that of a shockwave cone forming around the fuselage of an airplane as it flies by you at 600mph.

2. The amount of fat that can be supported by the human skeletal system is truly astonishing. There were some enormously obese people down at the lakefront. I think Ive become immune to the sheer percentage of overweight people in our population but there were some seriously fat people at this show. Almost as a testament to this, there was a stand renting and selling those canvas folding lawn chairs and, frighteningly, there was one that they advertised as being able to hold 1,000lbs. There were a few people at the show who could've given this chair all it could handle. And they never seemed to stop eating.

3. At the same time, there were some unbelievably pretty women at the show. Alas, all of them were with guys. I realized in looking at them that I currently have no ability to talk to women I find really attractive. Being married for several years has eradicated all my flirting skills but at least I now also look significantly older. For just a few minutes, I was saddened by the realization that the women I was most attracted to were the ones I probably had the least chance of success with.

4. The level of ignorance of the average American is staggering. I bought box seats for my dad and I and during the flights of some of the World War II aircraft, I had to listen to the guy next to me explain to his female friend, who was at least in her mid 30's, that we fought both the Japanese and Germans during World War II. This woman had no idea what Pearl Harbor was and had clearly never heard of the D-Day invasion. I hope she's not a registered voter but she probably is and I guarantee you that this dolt has a resolute opinion about who should be our next president. (Lest you think this is an isolated incident, I went out to lunch today. Just when I was feeling a little self-conscious about being the only patron sitting by himself at Ruby Tuesday, I felt a little better about my lot in life when I had to tell the server how many weeks are in a year. She and another server were trying to figure out how much someone would make in a year at a given hourly wage and they were struggling mightily).

Some people might read this and feel it's a pretty condescending post but I would disagree. There is no excuse for being grossly obese. The percentage of people who have a bona fide medical condition causing extreme weight gain is incredibly small. Thus, most cases of obesity in this country are due solely to a lack of will power. People stuff their faces, nonstop, full of crap and they engage in almost no exercise. They should be ashamed of themselves. I'm not suggesting everyone can have a body like a model. But there is no excuse other than sheer laziness for being more than 30lbs overweight.

There is also no excuse for not knowing major facts about World War II or how many weeks there are in a year. This is basic knowledge that people should have to function in daily life or be able to engage in intelligent conversation. Only true history buffs can cite the implication of every major World War II battle but every citizen ought to know why we fought the war, who we fought, and the major events of the time. How anyone graduates from a school system without such knowledge is beyond me.

In this election season, I think it's important to keep in mind that this is, by and large, the voting public. We're a bunch of fat, lazy, ignorant people. If the American people don't care enough about themselves to change this, why do we deserve a president who is any better? And how can people who don't know who attacked us in World War II or how many weeks are in a year even be trusted to pick the person most qualified to lead what, for a little while longer, is still the most powerful country in the world. When I think about how we ended up with McCain and Obama as our two choices, I didn't have to go any further than the Air Show for my answer.

Obama Cures Cancer!

2008-08-30T18:12:00.000-07:00

Breaking News For Immediate Release:

Hot off the heels of his record setting convention speech, presidential candidate and teen heartthrob Barack Obama has apparently topped himself. Reports out of the Mayo Clinic indicate that Obama has cured cancer! Said the silver-tongued Obama in typical humble fashion, "I just seem to have a way to get people to hope for change." Irving Rosenbaum, M.D., oncologist at the Clinic, confirmed the startling results: "Obama was able to completely cure cancer by inspiring hope in 9 of 10 patients. We assume the unrecovered patient was a conservative."

Upon leaving the Clinic, Obama stated that his next project is to end world hunger with some loaves and fish.

Blue Angels

2008-08-29T14:05:00.001-07:00

I’m taking my dad to the Cleveland Air Show this weekend. You never know how many of those either of us have left in us so I didn’t want to miss it. A lot of people seem to dislike air shows. They think the shows glorify war or demonstrate our wasteful spending on military equipment. I completely disagree with those people.

I’ve gone to the air show probably 15 times in my life. That’s nearly half the time I’ve been alive. My first major in college was aerospace engineering. When people watch the Blue Angels, despite the fact that they fly fighter jets, no one is thinking first of war. The precision with which these people fly is unbelievable. And the aircraft are truly pieces of art.

I’m no war monger by any stretch. However, the U.S. has been involved in legitimate conflicts over the years our success in some of these conflicts, starting with World War II, has been in some part due to aviation. Two summers ago I flew in a WWII B-17 bomber with my father. It was a great experience and I know one of the best memories he’s had. More than that, flying in that plane really gave me a sense of the courage of the boys who flew those planes. Many of them were teenagers and young adults barely old enough to vote. They flew in planes that weren’t very sophisticated and didn’t offer much protection. As I flew in it, I couldn’t imagine what it must have been like to be surrounded by German fighters and flak barrages.

Today’s planes are more sophisticated but the skill and courage involved to fly them is still the same. A mistake often results in death. And, whether we always like it or not, these people are protecting us. They serve the country when asked, even if the war is unpopular or unwarranted. Air shows are a chance for people to see some of what their taxes pay for and maybe even have a sense of pride in the men and women who take care of that equipment.

I have some good memories of the air shows. I will never forget when the cold war ended and I first got to see an SU-27 perform the “cobra” maneuver. Or the first time I got to see a MIG-29 or the F-117 stealth fighter. I don’t think about war and killing when I see these planes. I marvel at the engineering and the skill of the pilots. And I love the sound…

Downtime

2008-08-25T12:11:00.000-07:00

My last day of freedom is about half over. I've enjoyed a four day weekend. This is the most days I've had off in a row since last Christmas and it's interesting how days off can change your perspective. I'm not a workaholic but I have a rather unique position at my firm so sometimes it's difficult to take off, especially if I really don't have anything planned. When you work consistently, a lot of your thoughts are about work. You think about the stuff you're working on and the stuff you need to be working on. You think about the stuff at home that isn't getting done because you're working all day. When you finally have time off and can put work aside, it is interesting how a whole new set of concerns creeps in.

I generally try to be a positive person. I'm also reluctant to share alot about myself. I'll freely share opinions about topics outside my own life but I don't talk much about how I really feel inside about my life and circumstances. This has been a pretty trying year thus far. I started off the year thinking that I was getting back together with my wife (we've now been separated about 15 months). By the end of April, she chose not to move home. When she first left, it took a while to get used to being on my own again. Slowly, as things progressed, I accepted the fact that we'd probably get divorced but I left the door cracked. In the Fall, she indicated she wanted to come home. We spend Christmas together, had a nice time, and in the early months of '08 I was getting ready for her to move back. I'm not sure what happened between January and May. Could be she had cold feet, could be she met someone else. All I know is that it is extremely difficult to have someone walk out on you, finally accept it, switch gears and prepare to get back together and work things out, and then to have the rug pulled out from under you again. After that, as much as I care about her, the marriage died in my mind. We met subsequently and I thought we were going to talk about filing paperwork for dissolution when she stunned me by saying she now wanted to move home again. My heart wanted me to say yes but my head made me say no. I think it surprised and hurt her. I'm not sure I've ever felt worse.

Since then, she had to leave the place she was staying and was really having a hard time for a while. She thought about giving up the dog because her mother didn't want it staying there anymore. It was hard to find a house or apartment to rent because most wouldn't allow animals. In addition, she was working six days a week at a fairly new job so she didn't have time to really look for places and take care of things. People in her life who should care about her did not and she really didn't have anyone to help her. Because I think she's a person with a great heart, I have felt guilty and sad that she's been struggling but I could not jump in and do more to help given our situation. Things are better for her now. Work has calmed down and she find a little house to rent that allowed her to keep the dog. Still, I have the task this week of typing up dissolution papers. It's not where I thought we'd end up and not where I wanted to.

Also this weekend, I'm finally supposed to have my front door replaced by Lowes. It has been a six month ordeal of phone calls, letters, and personal visits to the store (not to mention three botched visits by the installer). All I can say is, don't shop at Lowes.

In the past two months, I put $1200 in new tires and electrical components into my old Dodge Avenger only to have it totaled 3 weeks ago by some moron who wasn't paying attention while driving and decided to ruin the day of five other drivers.

I still have to finish the rennovation of my small bathroom. I'm procrastinating because I had to replace some drywall and now working to get the new plaster coating on it which means applying plaster, sanding, applying more plaster if it not covered right, more sanding, etc. I hate plastering and sanding. I like painting, working with plumbing, cutting and putting up new molding, etc., but I hate sanding and plastering so I just keep putting it off and making excuses.

I guess the point is that while it's been nice to have 4 days off (I took my parents to Vatican Splendors and out to lunch in Little Italy, restrung my guitar, and took care of some other neglected business) it also gave me time to think about this year and what I've been through and still have to go through. I'm pretty good at being alone but I didn't think that, at 43, I was going to find myself alone again. I have no confidence or desire to date anyone, maybe because it's too soon but also because I have very little trust left in women. And as silly as it sounds, I hate that Summer is coming to an end. I like not having to wear coats. I love being outside and smelling grass and taking care of my roses and sitting on my front step playing guitar. I hate plowing snow, driving in snow, and well...snow. The only thing I really like about Winter is the silence.

Anyway, I guess this is quite rambling. After 4 days off, I'm not really ready to go back to work but being home alone has forced me to think about all the other things I still have to deal with. I have it a lot better than many people and for that, I'm thankful. Still, I'd like to know what it's like to be one of those people who seem to be able to be married forever, work at a job, come home and crack open a beer and watch TV and never seem to want for anything more than that life. I never have been, nor do I think I ever will be, satisfied. There's something good about that but just once in my life I'd like to know what it feels like.

And In Celebrity News...

2008-08-18T12:49:00.001-07:00

I'm so happy to hear that John Mayer dumped Jennifer Aniston. In general, I could care less about celebrities but sometimes they invade your life no matter how much you try to avoid them. Jennifer Aniston was one such person because of the ubiquitous nature of Friends and her high profile relationship with Brad Pitt. I hated all the "Friends." First, because the show was never as good as people made it out to be and second, because each one of the castmates seemed to actually think that they had some uniquely superior talent that made the show what it was. They were blind to the fact that it was just a cultural phenomenon and that people liked the ensemble, not any one of the players. Any group of 20-somethings on that show could've done as well.

But I digress. When Aniston and Pitt were dating, that's all you heard about. When Brad dumped her for Angelina Jolie, every magazine cover in the grocery store openly wondered how Jennifer Aniston would survive. When she started dating John Mayer, who's about 10 years younger than her, these same magazines shouted about how Stella got her groove back.

Somehow a few months ago I started receiving ESPN the Magazine and OK Weekly. I didn't subscribe to either and never paid for them. They are both awful magazines but at least ESPN has paragraphs in it. OK Weekly appears to be targeted to women who don't know how to read and only care what fashions celebrity women are sporting. In the last issue, the cover story was all about how excited Jennifer Aniston was to plan her wedding to John Mayer. Inside, they even showed pictures of the gown she might wear. Hahahahahahahaha. Okay, I'm sure OK Weekly made all of it up and none of the three sentence articles were officially from Jennifer Aniston. Still, it is so great to see how everyone talked about what a "cougar" she was and now to see her get royally dumped.

This should come as no surprise. John Mayer has reportedly said that they have "different chemistry." Translation: "I realized that I'm John Mayer. 18-25 year old chicks throw their panties at me on stage. And the moms of my underage fans want to blow me in my trailer. What am I doing in a serious relationship with a has-been who's ten years older than me." John Mayer is notorious for bedding tons of young Hollywood starlets. No one could have seriously thought this was a relationship headed for the altar. Regardless, I just love when any of these starlets that are so adored in the media for no reason gets dumped. Of course, that means having to endure the next cover of OK Weekly where they have to discuss how torn up Jennifer is. Then again, if they have a picture of her crying it might be worth it.

And The Hits Just Keep Coming

2008-08-17T09:49:00.000-07:00

So, my birthday was about two weeks ago, on July 29th. It was a work day, unfortunately, so I didn't really have anything special planned except, of course, to actually go home from work. That plan was interrupted by my car's decision to not start. While I knew it was not as simple as a battery issue, the guys in the parking garage insisted on trying a jump start. This was courteous except that because they were also trying to jump another vehicle, it took them about 1/2 hour to get to me. I'm in a suit and it's in the mid 80s, mind you.

As expected, the car didn't start so I had to get a tow from downtown Cleveland back to the old homestead. Another 1/2 hour goes by. Finally the tow truck arrives and we have to push my car backwards up the slight incline of the garage so he can get it on the tow rig. All while other business folks parked on floors above me are trying to leave. Oh, and there was an Indians game that evening.

We finally get on the road and drop it off at the garage where I'm going to get it fixed. Turns out to be a camshaft sensor and crankshaft sensor, which is part of the electronic distributer system. Like most people, if they told me that the microwave oven in the engine needed replacing, I'd be at their mercy. Anyway, my 10 year old baby was fixed in 2 days for the low, low price of $900.

Fast forward about a week and a half to this past Tuesday. I'm minding my own business driving to work. As is good practice when you encounter traffic stopped at a light, I stopped as well. Unfortunately, someone 4 cars behind me decided not to stop. The end result was a 6 car pileup in which 4 cars, including mine, were totaled (see my poor baby below). No one was seriously injured but my poor car, which I had taken great care of and was in terrific shape despite her advanced years, is now gone.

Yes, I was already shopping for new cars and was planning to buy before Fall. Yes, my car's market value wasn't that great. Nonetheless, I tend to get attached to my cars like others get attached to pets. I usually have my cars for 6+ years. I still hand wash and wax them. I keep the interior clean and the trunk almost empty. I religiously get oil changes. So, despite being ready to move on from my 98 Avenger, I'm still sad that it was taken from me rather than me saying goodbye on my own terms. I've now bought a new Altima coupe and should have it in a couple days. I'm sure it will be a nice car and I'll get attached to it. It's my first new car, as I usually buy used. Buying used is kind of like getting a dog from the pound. Somehow the car is a bit more lovable. I'll miss my Avenger. Despite the $900 repair and new tires that now seem like a waste, she was a good car for me and I enjoyed having her.

Bravery

2008-08-11T07:36:00.000-07:00

Yesterday while standing in the grocery checkout line, I saw a story on the cover of a tabloid, I think it was US Weekly, about Christina Applegate's "brave" fight with cancer. I've never understood the use of the term "brave" with respect to a disease. To me, bravery is when you knowingly do something that puts you at personal risk for reasons that are generally not selfish. A soldier throwing herself on a grenade to protect her comrades is brave. A neighbor who runs into a burning house to try to save people is brave. Even a family member who decides to donate an organ to another family member is brave because surgery is always risky and they know this risk up front but willingly accept it.

It is not bravery when someone is a victim of something unknowable or unpredictable. Someone surviving a car crash is not brave, they're lucky. Likewise, when a person gets cancer and receives treatment for it, that's not bravery. The person didn't make a decision to get cancer so that someone else they care about would be spared. That would be brave. The person who contracted the disease was simply unlucky enough to get cancer. Once you get cancer, you have two choices. Do nothing and probably die from it or do what they doctors tell you and hopefully recover or maybe even get cured. Few people pick the former unless the cancer is so advanced or they have other problems that preclude effective treatment.

So, the way this goes is that people contract cancer, a doctor lays out a treatment plan, and the patient follows it to the best of his/her ability. There is nothing brave about doing this. It's your only option. It's like saying I was brave when I had my appendix removed and then had to sit home for a month with two gaping holes in my stomach while I healed. I wasn't brave. If I didn't have surgery, I would be dead. Confronted with that "choice," I did the only thing that a rational person would do. Let the doctors do their thing and follow their advice to heal myself. Cancer patients do the exact same thing. They're not brave, they simply want to live and so they do exactly what they need to do to give themselves the best shot at doing so.

This doesn't mean I don't respect how physically and emotionally taxing cancer can be. Like most people, I've seen family members die from cancer and nothing about it is pleasant. But I think we overuse terms live "brave" and "hero" in our country. It's part of this whole notion that we constantly have to pump everyone up. While reading yesterday's newspaper, there was a cover story in the Parade magazine about Meg Ryan, Annette Benning, and Eva Mendes with the subtitle, "We're not the women you think we are." Well, I hate to break it to them, but I don't think about any of them at all. I have no concept of who they might be because I couldn't care less. I spent more time thinking about my sandwich this morning then I've ever spent thinking about all three of these women combined. But again, we live in a society where everyone has to have this inflated sense of importance. Sometimes, they try to create it themselves as celebrities do when they seek attention. Sometimes it is thrust upon people when the media calls them "brave" or "hero" for doing something that anyone would do when faced with the same situation. Why do we feel the need to label every human action or response?

John Edwards - Another Washington Phony

2008-08-08T12:33:00.000-07:00

I love that John Edwards finally had to come clean and admit to having an affair. He kept lying and lying and lying about it. But it's hard to lie when the tabloids catch you in a hotel with another woman. Like so many of these guys, he thought he was teflon and that if he just lied about it, it would just go away. Well, it didn't go away. His career probably has. It's one thing to cheat on your wife. It's another to cheat on her when she has a deadly form of cancer. That really makes this guy look like an absolute asshole. Of course, if he wants the media to talk about something else, maybe he can go get another $400 haircut.

The Final Frontier

2008-08-05T05:43:00.001-07:00

On Sunday night the International Space Station flew right over Cleveland at 10:13pm. For once, conditions in the sky were favorable for viewing it. It wasn't much to see; an unblinking object about as bright as Jupiter moving across the sky at a fast clip from NW to SE. From the time I spotted it until its glow slowly faded was only about a minute but it was still something to watch.

The Space Station is somewhat of a white elephant. It has cost a phenomenal amount of money. There have been mecahnical problems and other issues with getting parts on time from all the involved nations. The scientific value of the station is questionable. Still, none of that mattered to me as I watched it glide across the sky.
To me, it was still amazing that the object I was watching was a huge, manmade satellite. While people criticize many of our endeavors in space, it is unbelievable complicated to accomplish the things we have accomplished in this unforgiving environment. Setting aside all the glitches, the Space Station still left me with a sense of awe and wonder. It's also an inspiration and a representation of what humans can accomplish when we at least try to work together. Maybe that's the real value of these missions. While the science may sometimes be questionable, we need people to be inspired, to look beyond themselves for something greater, and to never lose the desire to explore the unknown. I haven't sat out looking at the stars as much as I used to. That night I did and it was as peaceful as I remember.

T. Boone Pickens - A Smart Dude

2008-07-29T06:10:00.001-07:00

So wow. T. Boone Pickens now has more in common with liberal Democrats? Say it ain't so. The guy who funded the whole Swift Boat Veterans deal to help keep Kerry out of the White House is now talking about our addiction to oil and our need to develop alternative energies? This guy is now saying he agrees with Al Gore on most things environmental? Wow. And I thought he was just a billionaire who only cared about making money. Oh wait, that's exactly what he is.

Nice TV ad he's got going on. Very scary. Too bad most of it isn't true. Hey T.Boone, less than 20% of our imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf. And, um, yeah we do use more oil than any other industrialized country, especially considering our population. But then again, our economy represents about 30% of the global economy. When people balk about a country of only 300 million using 25% of the world's oil, they forget this little fact about how much we produce and what a large percentage of the world economy we represent. T. Boone is also concerned about how much money we send overseas for oil purchases. What about all the money we send overseas with our enormous trade deficit? China isn't exactly a friend to the U.S. but we ship billions of dollars to them every year. Our trade deficit is much larger than the amount we spend on oil. Why not be concerned about that?

The amazing thing is how T. Boone is now trying to look like your billionaire grandpa who's had a change of heart and realized we must do something better for our future. He's so altruistic. Of course, he only came to this realization once all the easy billions in oil had been made. Now it's getting harder and he wants to get out. So, he's invested in wind farms. He's invested in natural gas processing and refining. And now he'd like the government to give big tax credits for wind energy and natural gas. He like to see us enact his plan to use wind to supply energy for homes and business, thus freeing up natural gas for use in transportation. And who would profit most heavily from this? Why, the person who owns the wind farms and natural gas production facilities, of course. And who is that? Well, coincidentally it happens to be T. Boone Pickens. Of course, he's not proposing this to make more money. He's proposing it because it's the right thing to do. He cares about the environment. And me. He cares about me, the little guy, who's getting hurt buy these terrible Middle Eastern oil barons. Sure. Uh huh.

This guy is so full of crap it isn't funny. His plan involves completely re-working the infrastructure of energy delivery in this country which will be far more expensive than the oil purchases he's so afraid of. Wind energy is also not feasible in many parts of the U.S. Granted, fossil fuels of all kinds, including natural gas, will eventually run out and we should continue to develop alternatives. But trying to scare Americans into doing something that simply makes T. Boone Pickens more billions is ridiculous. Unfortunately, the Democrats are so stupid that they are now embracing this guy as some kind of hero. He's their new favorite spokesman and is getting invited to all the cool kid parties. It once again confirms my suspicion that there is incredible stupidity on both sides of the political spectrum.

Consumerism

2008-07-24T08:29:00.000-07:00

I should just change the title of this blog to "Americans Are Full Of Shit" because I find myself saying it so often. But the fact is, we are. Take the iPhone, the latest gadget that just pisses me off. There are several reasons it pisses me off but the main one is that I don't think anyone needs or can seriously justify a $199 telephone. Let's just get it out of the way. People who are buying these are generally poseurs who just want to be seen as part of the cool, hip, in-crowd. It is nothing more than that.

Even if you want to argue that anyone needs to be able to quickly access the internet and watch videos on a phone, there are other phones that do these things more cheaply than the iPhone. But those phones don't look as cool. They don't have the cachet of the iPhone. It is amazing to me that people who piss and moan about the economy, or gas prices, or that they don't have any money, will spend $200 on a phone.

In a recent comment to a post from Mando Mama on her blog, I remarked about how my father and I were driving and I noted how full the Best Buy parking lot was. To reiterate the point I made to her, Best Buy is arguably a store of "wants." There is almost nothing, maybe actually nothing, in a Best Buy store that is a necessity. They predominantly sell computers, TV's, video games, and DVDs. While these are all nice shiny baubles, none are necessities. Still, Best Buy's parking lot is pretty crowded and people, some of whom have probably been on TV moaning that they can't pay their mortgage, or who walked away from negative equity, or who have declared bankruptcy, are walking our with boxes, disks, and iPhones.

Again, to restate what I said in my comments to Mando, people can do whatever they want with their money. They earn it and can spend it on whatever they want (though I hate when people buy things only because their friends have it and they don't want to be left out or look less than cool - how pathetic). However, if people are going to spend their money on this stuff, then I wish I could apply two simple rules:

1. Don't bitch to me about the price of necessities. If you're spending $100 a month on cable/internet service, have a 4 person family where every person has a cell phone (maybe some iPhones), your kids get every new video game they want, and you have a closet full of DVDs, then I don't want to hear you complain about the price of gas or food. Period.

2. Don't look to me, or my tax dollars to bail you out. I do not want billions of dollars of American taxpayer money to go into a slush fund to renegotiate mortgages for people who shouldn't have been in those houses in the first place and, when times were good, didn't deny themselves a single thing they wanted. You dug your grave, lie in it.

Of course, I won't get either of these things. Americans believe we're entitled to take great vacations, have every new gadget we want, and spend $120 on our hair and $30 on our nails. But we want gasoline, electricity, health care, and education to be cheap, or better yet, free.

I saw a news report a couple of weeks ago about a couple complaining that they couldn't pay their mortgage and the wife said they had $30,000 in credit card bills. How the fuck do you get $30,000 in credit card bills? And where's all the shit you bought with it? It didn't look to me like their house was all that fancy or the furnishings were super expensive. They did not have a significan illness that resulted in this debt. So what the hell did they buy on credit cards for $30,000? So they basically receive $30,000 in bills every month! Really? Really? Wow.

The problem is that in a rational world, these people would be in a world of hurt. They'd lose their house, many of their possessions. They'd have to live in an apartment, have their credit ruined, and scrimp and save for things they needed. It wouldn't be pleasant but maybe, just maybe, they'd learn something. Instead, because it's America, we can't actually punish anyone. The government will pass the legislation to bail their mortgage out, the couple may declare bankruptcy after which some creditors will still be happy to loan them money, and they'll escape relatively unscathed, probably to go on spending as if nothing every happened. Unreal. We really need to look at our priorities in the country.

Forgiveness

2008-07-23T06:50:00.000-07:00

In having another somewhat exasperating conversation with a co-worker about my atheism, I had a epiphany. Actually, the conversation wasn't that exasperating but I do get a bit miffed having to defend the null hypothesis. More on that in a bit.

My epiphany, and forgive me for being slow to catch on, was that forgiveness is absolutely the greatest concept ever invented by religion. It occurred to me that every time I have conversation with a religious person, mainly Christians, everything gets explained away by the concept of forgiveness. People don't have to actually behave in accordance with their beliefs because God doesn't expect you to be perfect and He forgives you for not being so. It doesn't matter what kind of absolute bastard you've been in you've life, if you get "saved" and pray for forgiveness, you've got a clean slate.

Many Christians spend a lot of their time thinking about how other people should behave. They have even formed coalitions to prod the government into legislating the way people behave. But when you point out that their own behavior is often in conflict with their pronouncements, the issue of forgiveness inevitably comes up if you press hard enough. It's such a convenient tool. I read today that one of the fat talking heads on The View admitted that she previously slept around with a lot of men and "had more abortions than I can count." Of course, that's all okay because she found God and is now a Christian. Not only that, but she thinks some of the more outspoken female Christian leaders would even be able to help save Barbara Walters. I'm no big fan of Babs but I'm not sure what she's done that's worse than multiple abortions.

I understand that people can be on the wrong path in life. I understand that they can do things they regret and in order to make peace with themselves and live a better life, they need forgiveness. Primarily they need to forgive themselves and if it helps to believe that a magical guy in the sky forgives you too, so be it. But I don't think divine forgiveness can be wielded as a tool, as some people do, to get out of making hard choices and putting your money where your mouth is. I'm also not sure it can be used to wipe away multiple murders. But it is a fantastic invention to keep people faithful. I mean, how many Christians would be left if there was no such thing as forgiveness?

Regarding the null hypothesis, when I talk with many religious people they seem to want to treat religion differently than every other topic. Put simply and unoriginally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When people hear I'm an atheist, I'm often asked to defend my disbelief. We don't do this with anything else in the world. I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster. No one asks me to prove that it doesn't exist. Instead, we ask the believers to prove that it does. In science, the null hypothesis is the absence of an experimental effect. It is the presumed state until objective evidence proves otherwise. Given the absence of tangible, physical evidence for the existence of God, the null hypothesis is that God does not exist. One does not have to prove the null, it has to be disproven. This is now the approach I take when discussing the topic. I no longer try to prove my point and instead ask to see the proof that those making the claim have to offer. Like the Amazing Randi's quest for proof of psychic ability, I've yet to have anyone provide any such proof.

The Dark Knight

2008-07-20T16:16:00.000-07:00

Like millions of other people across the country, I saw the new Batman movie this weekend. I should qualify this by saying that I see almost every superhero movie so I didn't just go because of the hype. I'm also not one to rhapsodize movie stars as I generally think they are a bunch of overpaid, narcissistic jerks. Lastly, I can pretty much say I never feel sorry when someone takes their own life, either through purposeful suicide or through moronic self-indulgence.

All that being said, I'm sorry that Heath Ledger is gone if only because I will not get to see him reprise his role as the Joker. This was absolutely one of the best portrayals I've ever seen and it highlights even more what a waste his death is. I won't go on and on about the performance because a lot of people are doing that. Suffice it to say that no matter how cool the superhero is, they are always defined by the villain. In fact, this is where most superhero movies go bad. The villains are either poorly acted, poorly conceived, poorly executed, or just not scary enough. That's okay in a show like the Batman TV series of the 60's. That wasn't supposed to be scary and a lot of the people who played the villains gave classic, if not campy, performances.

However, in the modern superhero movie we now have the technology to make the audience believe a man can fly or shoot webs or have metal blades extend from his hands. So we need a villain that really scares us. A villain that makes you wonder if the hero can actually win. Heath Ledger's Joker gives us that villain probably better than any other superhero movie villain. I think that Ian McKellen's Magneto character was one reason why the X-Men movies worked so well. His character had great power but was also coldly intelligent and wasn't necessarily wrong in his beliefs. Similarly, Ledger's Joker is funny at times but mainly frightening in his lack of allegiance to, well, anything. His appearance, mannerisms, and speech were all masterfully executed. And in many ways, he's not necessarily wrong either.

I don't want to sell Christian Bale short as Batman. He's the best of all of the people who've played the role and the only one since Michael Keaton's first go to effectively communicate the conflict in the character. Some of that is good writing and direction but Bale's performance playing off of characters who in many ways are necessarily more colorful is very good. But Ledger's performance is one of the few I've seen that is worthy of the praise it's received.

The Pursuit of Stupidity

2008-07-16T05:43:00.001-07:00

I have to start wondering if American car companies even want to be successful. A part of me doubts it. For a while, SUVs were selling like hotcakes and given that the markup on them was higher than any other vehicle, you could understand why the "big" 3 were making them to the exclusion of R&D on practically anything else, including small cars and electric and hybrid powerplants.

So, when oil started spiking and people starting migrating in droves to smaller vehicles, American auto was caught with their pants down. What was there response? The "crossover," like the Ford Edge pictured here. Not quite an SUV, not quite a car, but still plenty of profit padding built in. Instead of seeing the future that everyone, even those in the oil industry, have now accepted, American car companies just refused to let go of their outdated business model. So what do I read in the paper yesterday? Predictably, that crossover sales are plummeting and once again U.S. auto is wringing its hands.

These bastards continue to gamble with the lives of millions of Americans all so that they can continue to extract the last penny out of people for these overpriced, ridiculous vehicles. Now they tout how fuel efficient they are. Hello? Detroit? 25mpg is not fuel efficient. And, by the way, that 25mpg is the EPA estimated economy and we all know that estimate is based on wildly inaccurate assumptions about actual use. The person plunking down their money for this idiotic contraption will be lucky to get 17mpg.

For years Detroit has been telling us that they only build what America wants. Bullshit. If they never built a massive SUV, Americans would still be driving sedans and station wagons. All these people who somehow think they NEED an SUV would have managed without them, just like we did for the first 90 years of the automobile industry. People have smaller families in the U.S. than ever before so why do we need bigger vehicles? The reason is because, as I've said before on this blog, Americans have trouble thinking for themselves. They bought, hook, line, and sinker, the manufacturers vision of the glamour of SUVs. You neighbor has one and you're not going to let him have a bigger car than you, right? RIGHT??? Can't have that happen. This is America. It's my God-given right to one-up my neighbors and friends.

You know, I'm pretty sure kids will eat Ding Dongs all day if you let them. That doesn't mean it is a good idea. The car, er, truck companies fed Americans these behemoths because they made an astounding profit on each one, pure and simple. And these vehicles appealed to American ego and the sense that bigger is always better. So when SUV sales tanked and the CEO of GM started worrying about making the next payment on his mansion in Ft. Lauderdale, the answer was clear. Crossovers.

Now those are tanking too and American auto is still at least a couple years behind Japanese technology on hybrids and electric vehicles. Hyundai and Kia sales have been soaring and they don't even make hybrids. They make small, fuel efficient cars. The kind people want now. The kind that the big 3 automakers are currently ill-equipped to build. So there will probably be more plant closings and layoffs and regular middle-class people getting hurt by the myopic greed of the decision makers at these companies. But don't worry, the executives will be okay. They've packaged their salaries and perks to be recession-proof. They'll weather the storm and when the economy starts growing again, I'm sure they'll have some forward thinking designs to sell us. Anyone interested in the Model-T?

People Are Just People

2008-07-14T10:17:00.001-07:00

This past Saturday, my best friend, Boring Best, had a cookout at his folks house. In addition to his family and me, he invited a friend from work and her boyfriend, two French people who are staying with him on a visit to Cleveland, and three Russian people who live here and are friends of his through the girl he dates. I tend to be a bit of a hermit and a bit shy so I have to sometimes force myself to go out, particularly when there will be a crowd, but I went and had a really good time, probably the most fun I've had in a while. Everyone ate, swam, played badminton, joked around, and sat out by the fire. It was a lot of fun and everybody seemed to get along fine.

Of course, it always makes me wonder why we can't do that on a larger scale. Right now, the leadership in Russia has been ratcheting up the rhetoric against the West and flexing its muscle a bit. I'm sure the Russian guests at my friend's party are proud of their country, rightly so, but at the same time I think they understand from living here that average Americans aren't trying to take over the world. We're just working, trying to keep a roof over our heads, and hoping to play a little badminton on a nice weekend. Prior to their current regime, France had cooled relations with the U.S. considerably as well. But the two French people I spent time with this weekend were just trying to relax and enjoy a nice Cleveland summer evening.

I think it really is true to an extent that politicians cause a lot of the problems in the world. I don't know how much money anyone at the cookout this weekend makes but my guess is that there wasn't a huge disparity between the haves and have nots. My point being that I understand that humans will squabble over resources. If some people have plenty and others have little, there will always be a certain amount of tension. But I think that when people just hang out together, when they just talk and share things we all have in common, like the need to eat and have a little fun, it's amazing how alike we all are. It's too bad there are so many who have so much invested in us being different.

All I know is that I'm grateful to my friend because he is more outgoing than I am and as a result I got to hang out with some cool people this weekend. And no one talked about politics, or war, or oil prices. We just enjoyed each other's company and made some new friends.

Someone, Anyone, Please Stop Will Ferrell!

2008-07-08T12:52:00.000-07:00

Can someone please stop Will Ferrell from making movies? Please? I've now been seeing the trailer for his latest disaster, Stepbrother, and I have decided it is time to stop the madness. I'll grant that, talent-wise, Will Ferrell is better than some of the other comedic "stars" that boggle the mind with their ability to keep making movies (read: Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Eddie Murphy, Mike Myers). Still, this doesn't make up for the appalling crap he puts on the screen. And I'm tired of people trying to convince me that his movies are funny. No, they're not. I'm not certain he's ever made a single good movie. Movies with a couple good parts? Maybe. But an actual good movie? No. And to anyone who says otherwise, you're wrong. I'd love if Will would go back to SNL or some other sketch comedy. He was brilliant at that. But movies? Not your thing Will. Please, for all our sakes, stop.

And speaking of Eddie Murphy, I see he's got another bomb coming out where he plays multiple characters. This seems to be his schtick now. You can almost hear the commercial where the deep voiced announcer says, "A hilarious new comedy starring Eddie Murphy... and Eddie Murphy... and Eddie Murphy!" At which point we are all supposed to roll off our couches, clutching our sides with the pain of laughter, and speed dial Fandango to pre-order our tickets. Eddie Murphy hasn't made a good film since the first Beverly Hills Cop. He either has very little talent or absolutely no ability to determine the components of a quality script. Since his stand-up shows were actually pretty funny, I'll assume the latter in which case he needs to hire someone for a career makeover or, like Will Ferrell, just stop making movies.

And for those Hollywood moguls who greenlight this crap, I've got some prime real estate on the East bank of the Flats in Cleveland to sell you.

Ich bin ein Berliner

2008-07-03T05:41:00.000-07:00

Okay, forgetting all the debates over how those famous words of JFK really translated, maybe it's time to rethink Germany. As anyone who reads this blog knows, I think about about the sorry state of health care in this country and am fascinated by how they do it in other countries. I've read about the German system before but this morning NPR also had a report on it and for skittish Americans who have such a love/hate relationship with their government, this system seems like a good compromise.

The German system is not really government health care or a single payer system. They still have private health insurers. However, the provider network is a mixture of non-profit and for-profit hospitals and doctors. People still pay into the the system but what the government does is strongly regulate the industry so that costs are contained and appropriate service is rendered to all. The German's believe that everyone deserves health care and care should be the same for all. They find it inconceivable that we have nearly 50 million uninsured people hear.

The woman and her husband featured on NPR live in Germany and have a mixture of coverage. The husband is from America and, because he is self-employed, he's not eligible for the German system so he has to buy private health insurance. The wife pays $200 per month but this also covers here children. Care for the children is free, including orthodontist visits. She pays a $15 co-pay when she sees her physician.

There are some inequities. The husband's private insurance allows him to go to the for-profit facilities and even request appointments with the top surgeons and specialists. He gets to go to the head of the line at appointments and this special treatment does bother the wife but she is still very satisfied with her care. And the reporter of the story mentioned that the government is always tweaking the system whenever there's a public perception that things are starting to get unfair between public and private insurance holders. Also, those making more than $72,000 per year can opt out of the government system and go private but apparently very few do so.

To me, this seems like a compromise worth exploring in America. Everyone is afraid of having the government actually take over and run health care in this country but at the same time, if we're being honest, we have to admit that the current system is not sustainable. Why not have a system where you still have private insurers but where the government sets very rigid standards on pricing of procedures, policies, increases in premiums, and demands coverage for all citizens? Yes, I know this flies in the face of capitalism and the free market economy but again, let's be honest, the health care business is now more free market than the oil industry. When the bulk of Americans get care from a hospital system owned by about 5 major companies and the majority of insurance policies are sold but about the same number of big insurers, that is not a free market. So I say let's clamp down on these people. Health care isn't something that should be up to the laws of supply and demand anyway. We're not talking about whether people can afford filet mignon here. We're talking about general health and in some cases life and death. A moral and just society takes care of its citizens, plain and simple.

The Germans have now had their system, working pretty well, for over 120 years. No one is saying it's perfect. No one is saying it would be easy or painless to change. But as I always said when I was working as a therapist, if you keep doing the same thing, the same thing is going to keep happening. It's time to do something different.

LeBron James

2008-07-02T05:38:00.001-07:00

Well, a lot of people here in Cleveland seem to be buzzing about the fact that LeBron James may leave Cleveland for some New York when his contract here is up. Now, nothing can happen for at least two years and who knows what things will be like then. Cleveland may have won a championship. LeBron may have a serious injury. Who knows? What I do know is that I wouldn't blame him if he left.

I think the reason a lot of people in Cleveland get upset when these "stars" leave is because, deep down, we know Cleveland stinks. All these fans who are already painting James as a potential traitor would probably also leave if they were in his shoes. Let's be honest, would you rather be a multimillionaire in New York or Cleveland? Some people certainly might not like the New York lifestyle and in 20 years, James may not want that anymore either. But right now he's a kid in his early 20's. He's rich, popular, in great shape, and would be the toast of the town. If I were his age, with his outgoing personality and money, I'd much rather be in New York where there's always something to do and supermodels walk around on the street.

Again, how does Cleveland compare to New York? Sure, it's quieter and the cost of living is much more appealing but that's not an issue for LeBron James. We have a handful of great restaurants, a terrific art museum, and a world class orchestra. I'm not sure how much LeBron is into the latter two but NY has hundreds of great restaurants, Central Park, the Met and Guggenheim, world class theater, fantastic night clubs, great sporting events and venues, and there are actually things to do there after 9pm when Cleveland has gone to sleep. Of course, Ohio is ranked in the top ten in the nation for obesity and smoking. That's pretty appealing. And on a nice day you can pick up the stench of slag from the steel mills for several miles. Our greatest resource in Cleveland, Lake Erie, remains undeveloped as a tourist attraction.

My point is that if I were LeBron, I'd get out of here as soon as I could. That doesn't mean he hates Cleveland. What it means is that he had an opportunity. Drew Carey left, Bob Hope left. Sure they visit(ed) frequently and even maintained local properties but they didn't stay here working at the Improv in the Flats. They left, just like I would and just like probably anyone else would if they could get a great job making good money and living somewhere more fun or interesting. It is what it is.

Maybe LeBron will stay, maybe he won't. Ultimately it won't matter because sports and sports heroes, like actors and other celebrities, just don't matter that much in the world. Two years is a long time. But if he does leave, I wouldn't blame him at all. He has the right to have fun and do whatever he wants. If I would feel any malice toward him, it would only be out of envy and I suspect that's true of most people who would be angry with him.

Still Trying to Understand Religion

2008-06-27T12:38:00.000-07:00

In a widely publicized survey on religion released a couple days ago, some remarkable changes in religious beliefs were noted. Changes that, to my mind, make me once again question what people believe. Let me preface this by saying that there's really not much wiggle room in the major world religions. Almost all of them have a religious text, like the Bible, Koran, or Talmud, that the practitioners view as sacred. These books are believed to be the literal words of the particular God of the religion, either directly reported or coming through some minion(s). Again, there's no wiggle room in this. If the God of your book says that you should not condone homosexuality and you believe that this book is the true word of your God, then you cannot condone homosexuality. There's no choice here. You either believe or you don't.

In this latest survey, one of the things I found interesting is that the overwhelming majority of Americans professed a belief in God. The interesting part is that more than half the respondents also indicated that they believe there are multiple paths to God. In other words, it's okay if you're a Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim of Christian, as long as you believe. That sounds all nice and fuzzy and inclusive but it smacks in the face of what the religious books say. The God of the Old Testament was not super-inclusive. Recall that He especially had a problem with golden idols. This God, the God that the vast majority of Americans would claim to believe in, would not at all think it is okay to be a Hindu. In fact, He would smite you for believing in Vishnu.

Once again, this is why I assert that most people aren't even really religious. They claim to be because they want to be able to pray when they need something, to assert their morality over others, or simply feel like they have a hedge bet against death. But the reality is that if you believe you cannot cherry pick. You can't just practice the parts of the Bible that you're okay with and ignore the others. Either you believe or you don't.

When presented with this argument, some people would assert that the Bible is not literal or that it contradicts itself in places so some behaviors are not clearly delineated. Well, if the Bible isn't literal, then it isn't literal. You can't say the story of Adam & Eve is true but not the rest. Or that there really was a Noah but that God didn't mean you should hate Hindus. You can't have it both ways.

My point, which I've made before on this blog, is that I get sick of people being all sanctimonius about their religious beliefs but then not living according to their own supposed ideals. They'll argue that not having prayer in school is destroying our families while ignoring the alcoholism going on in their own house (something forbidden in the Bible). All you have to do is look at a couple statistics to see how hypocritical the faithful are. Over 90% of people in this country profess a belief in God. Yet 50% of marriages end in divorce (until recently prohibited by the Catholic Church) More than 60% of married men and women reportedly commit adultery (also forbidden in the Bible). Of these adults who get divorced, I'd venture to say that most start dating again and probably have sex before getting remarried. They probably had sex before their first marriage since more than half of teens have had sex before graduating high school (premarital sex also a big no-no in most religious texts). Gluttony is one of the "seven deadly sins" and yet 60% of Americans are overweight and about 40% are obese. It goes on and on and on.

If 90% of people believe in God, really believe, then it seems to me that the world ought to be a better place. Pundits like Bill O'Reilly bemoan the steady rise in secular influence but I say look around at the world. The majority believes in God and I don't think they've done such a great job. Why haven't their ideals led to a better world? They've certainly got the numbers. They could make anything happen. Then again, maybe I've got this all wrong. Given all the hatred and violence espoused in most religious texts, maybe the faithful really are living in accordance with their beliefs.

A True Loss

2008-06-23T06:08:00.000-07:00

Odd that last night I wrote a post about Lewis Black and Bill Maher and today I wake up and hear that George Carlin died. I can't stop thinking about this and it's one of those rare celebrity deaths that I feel personally. I was lucky enough to see Carlin in concert with my best friend in Vegas. It's one of my best memories. I have all three of his books and have seen a number of his concert specials. I don't tend to see movie comedies or watch sitcoms on TV. I just don't find them very funny. But Carlin was brilliant and I guess he appealed to me because I felt so much in common with his views on religion, hypocrisy, politics, and the general stupidity of the human race. Underneath it all, I think a lot of people knew he was turning a pretty accurate mirror on them and that's why he remained relevant for so long and was more than just a comedian. It's common to be hyperbolic when some celebrity dies but I really think the world is a worse place without George Carlin in it.

Lewis Black & Bill Maher

2008-06-22T18:46:00.000-07:00

Lewis Black is one of my favorite comedians. I think that most comedians really aren't all that funny, especially the ones who seem to get offered TV sitcoms, but I love Lewis Black because so much about people just pisses him off and I can relate. He is the subject of 20 Questions in this month's Playboy (a truly good issue) and one of the questions they asked is whether after all this time he has trouble getting angry onstage. The actual Q&A is as follows:

PB - You're widely revered as the angriest comic in America. Have you ever had nights when you're just not in the mood to go up there and be pissed off?

LB - Never. That has never occurred. I swear to God. Never, ever. There's always something that happens during the day. I may be yelling that they don't know what to do with Social Security, but I'm really yelling about the fact that my AT&T cell phone doesn't get shit in a variety of zones. I've lost calls, and it's a pain in the ass.

Love this guy.

The other thing that makes this month's Playboy good is that they have a short piece by Bill Maher on religion. I'm not a huge Bill Maher fan but in the piece he writes a couple of paragraphs on each of several religious sites in America, Europe and Israel that he visited this past winter to see why people are religious. In the section on Judah, Israel, he comments on how new "lost" sections of the Bible keep being found:

"It seems we keep finding Bible outtakes like we find "new" Elvis and Tupac records. Now, I know religious Christians and Jews alike get their hair shirts in a bunch when you call the Bible a fairy tale, and they have a point - the Bible is actually an anthology of fairy tales, a kind of Reader's Digest collection of books written in different languages over thousands of years and then assembled and translated into American, just as God planned."

Women Crack Me Up

2008-06-17T12:08:00.000-07:00

So I get the new issue of Playboy the other day and who's on the cover...again? Cindy Margolis. Now, for those who may not know, Cindy Margolis is a blond woman who is famous truly for no other reason than being famous. Back in the earlier, more tame days of the internet when the cool thing was simply to download pictures of models wearing bikinis, Cindy claimed to be the most downloaded woman in internet history. While that's always been a dubious claim, it did manage to get her spots on TV shows, radio talk shows, and even her our short-lived series that was so memorable that I can't even recall what she did. She was married and attractive and built a little empire out of her internet status.

What cracks me up about her is that she used to also make a big deal out of the fact that she would never pose nude. I remember hearing her once on Howard Stern talking about it and basically indicating that she didn't have to pose nude because she was already doing so well just posing in her various outfits.

Well, Cindy is now 42 and divorced. Thanks to good genetics, a presumably good diet, exercise, and a little help from plastic surgery, she's changed her tune about posing nude. This is her second time in Playboy and I think it pretty much gives you some insight into the psyche of Cindy Margolis. She doesn't need the money. Unless she pissed away all the money she previously made, she's set for life. While she bemoans the fact that she can't find anyone to date, I think she probably goes on dates. So why pose naked for Playboy? You can pick from any of the following standard answers given by washed up celebrities or psuedo-celebrities when they pose:

a) I feel like I look good for 42 and I wanted to show people that older women can still be sexy.
b) It's a new time in my life and I just feel like I'm finally living for me. I wanted to do something that would be a little risky and I was too self-conscious when I was younger but now I'm proud of who I am.
c) Playboy's been after me for years. I was always flattered but I was just too busy and it wasn't the right time. I finally thought, "What the hell?" I'm a strong, independent woman and I can show off a little if I want to.

The real explanation that you won't ever hear is:

d) I'm an attention whore who basically has never accomplished anything in my life other than being pretty. In fact, no one would have ever paid attention to me if I wasn't hot and paraded around with my boobs spilling out. The problem is that, like everyone, I got old. My husband dumped me and, well, teenage guys just don't tend to download pictures of 42 year olds. Since my entire self-worth and existence was wrapped up in receiving attention from people who don't know me, I found that I didn't really enjoy my new found status as a nobody. Since I can't act, sing, and don't have any skills that are even remotely applicable to the real world, I couldn't figure out how to get some more attention. Then I realized that I still look pretty good and even though people might not dowload me in bikinis, if I went totally nude I'd at least get 15 more minutes of fame. Of course, it only lasted 7 minutes so I had to do a second pictorial. A year from now I'll be doing another one for Penthouse, this time with a donkey and a cement lawn jockey.

It's All A Game

2008-06-16T06:02:00.000-07:00

So the Saudi's are now going to increase oil production to offset what they say are "abnormal" oil prices, as in abnormally high. Hmm. If the price of oil is set by the laws of supply and demand, as we're continually told by OPEC and our own fearless leaders, than how can the price be abnormally high? Isn't the price exactly what it should be based on market forces?

Guess not. I guess the price of oil really is regularly manipulated to maintain profits. The Saudi's don't like the fact that the world, especially America has finally started reducing oil consumption as a result of the skyrocketing prices. Sure, China may now be a bigger importer of oil but make no mistake, the U.S. is still the consumer economy most people care about. Our citizens have more discretionary funds, and more comfort living beyond our means, than any other nation in the world. The OPEC nations talked tough just a couple months ago when the U.S. asked them to increase production. They said, in effect, that it wasn't their responsibility to keep oil cheap in America.

What's changed since then? Well, back then, despite the price hikes, Americans' consumption really hadn't changed all that much. Now it has. American oil consumption has actually declined for the first time in a long while. People are trading in, or trying to trade in, trucks and SUV's for smaller, more efficient vehicles. Gas has finally crossed some psychological milestone price that is making people change their behavior. Now the Saudi's are worried. If America really continues to move full-steam ahead into alternative fuel vehicles and consumption reducing technologies, the Kingdom loses revenue. A lot of it. They also lose power. The less we depend on oil, the less we have to bow to the wishes of these countries. We may actually get to the point where we can start calling out the incredible human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.

But that probably won't happen because, let's be blunt, Americans by and large are somewhat ignorant. The Saudi's will increase oil production, gas prices will level off or even drop, and people will start using more gas again. Sure, some people will permanently adopt their conservationist ways but knowing the American appetite for all things large and overdone, a significant proportion of the population will again give into excess. Car makers will feel less pressure to get newer, more efficient vehicles to market and in a couple years we'll be right back to where we are now. It is the nature of people to change only when faced with a crisis. Remove the crisis and you remove the motivation to improve.

BTW, aren't American car companies funny? Back when Toyota and Honda first put of hybrids, the Small 3 American car companies said it was too expensive to develop hybrid technology, that they would have to do a lot of research before making hybrids, etc. Yet what is fascinating to me is how quickly most of them have been able to market hybrid SUVs. Most American companies still don't have any reliable hybrid compact cars but I see commercials marketing their hybrid trucks all the time. Why were they able to develop hybrid trucks first? Oh, I don't know. Do you think it has anything to do with the average $10,000 profit they make on SUVs? This is why I have no faith in traditional American corporations. Even when they finally embrace something like hybrid technology, they still do so in the same pigheaded, shortsighted way they do everything else. It's all about the quick buck today rather than long-term profits and benefits to society that may actually help them gain market share.

So, the news from the Saudi's is not surprising, nor is it anything to get excited about. Oil remains a finite resource and no matter how it is manipulated, there will always be a piper to pay at some point. Better to continue the pain now and make some substantive changes than cover the problem with a cheap coat of paint.

Neo Church - Just What We Need

2008-06-09T05:49:00.000-07:00

So last Friday on my way to work I saw some yahoo dressed up as Jesus by the entrance ramp to I-77 North. Some other guy was with him carrying a sign for the NEO Church. I basically laughed it off as a nice gimmick to get people to come to your church. Though it is interesting how people have no problem dressing up like Jesus whereas you cannot even depict Mohammed. But I digress…

I didn’t really give this another thought until driving to work this morning and seeing about 10 yard signs on the same entrance ramp that were disparaging to atheists. Basically, the gist of the signs (they were all the same) was that atheists have a special place reserved for them, presumably in Hell. Now, being an atheist, the message of the signs doesn’t bother me. Since I don’t believe in Heaven, I don’t believe in Hell either and I’m not worried.

What does irritate me is that if I had placed signs there that were offensive to Christians, they would probably have been torn down as soon as I left. At the very least, people would be offended and think it was inappropriate. If I had put up signs mocking Islam, people might want to kill me. But there’s absolutely no problem with offending atheists. I couldn’t put up highway signs mocking fat people, or blacks, or Jews, or Christians, or Muslims, or women, or just about any other group you can think of. But it is okay to display signs that might be offensive to atheists. No one cares what they think.

The real point of this is that the members of the NEO Church apparently don’t understand how much this weakens their argument. If the only way you can make yourselves look good is to disparage atheists, then how attractive is your way of life? Shouldn’t people just be drawn to it because it’s the truth? Shouldn’t Jesus’ message be powerful enough without having to mock the beliefs of others? And is mocking others really demonstrating your particular Christian philosophy? Hmm…What would Jesus do?

I went to the NEO Church website. Can’t really tell who’s running it but it looks like the plan is to try to appeal to a younger generation by using technology and cooler, hipper images of religion. It’s probably a good idea. Religion has been steadily losing it’s hold. Fully 1/3 of so-called believers no longer attend any kind of religious service. Membership in organized religions has dropped precipitously in the U.S. So the NEO Church is trying a new approach. Fine.

The problem is that I would bet my next paycheck that the members of the NEO Church are as hypocritical as the members of most churches. They tout the Bible as the ultimate authority but I guarantee they only follow the rules they choose. The two guys who were out on I-77 looked pretty young. I don’t think either of them was married. So they’re virgins, right? Because premarital sex is a sin, right? And probably neither of them has ever been drunk, right? Because the Bible has contains several admonishments of drunkenness. And no one in the NEO Church has committed adultery, domestic violence, or stolen anything in their lives, right? More than 50% of married Americans are unfaithful at some point in their marriages and more than 90% of Americans profess a belief in God so you do the math. Oh, that’s right. You can just pray about it and God forgives you. You don’t actually have to LIVE according to your beliefs. You merely have to spout them.

At this stage in my life, this kind of moral and intellectual dishonesty actually sickens me. I’m so tired of people espousing faith and beliefs and then living every single day as if those beliefs have no behavioral corollaries. It’s not just because I’m an atheist. It’s because I’m just tired of all the bullshit people shovel every day of their lives. I’m certain I’ve shoveled plenty in my life but I really have been making an effort to live more consistently with the beliefs I hold. While I frankly think that it is just plain stupid to believe in gods anymore, if someone wants to do that, let them knock themselves out. But don’t start attacking my beliefs unless you are living your own. It might be interesting to drop by the NEO Church during one of their services and see what enlightened human beings look like.

Well, At Least It's Thursday!

2008-06-05T06:12:00.001-07:00

Someone actually said that to me this morning as we walked into work. Granted, this woman looked at though she was walking in the Bataan Death March which prompted me to comment that she didn't look to thrilled to be coming to work. That, of course, prompted her response about Thursday.

I then said, in my typical cheery fashion that makes everyone think I'm a cynic or just plain angry, that I think it is pretty pathetic when the best thing we can say about our lives is, "At least it's Thursday!" God, what a horrible pronouncement that is. Half of my life is likely over, like many of the people I see downtown every day, and the best we can muster is some faint optimism that it's Thursday. This is how bad our lives really are.

As anyone knows who reads this blog regularly, I've been thinking a lot about career, life goals, passions, etc. I don't know that all this thinking will amount to much. Like most people I'm probably too (pick your adjective) lazy/lethargic/scared/confused/stupid to really DO anything. But I'll be damned if I'm going to resort to celebrating Thursdays. Or "hump day." Or saying "TGIF!" What are most people looking forward to on the weekends? Sitting around on their fat asses watching TV, yelling at their out of control kids, getting aggravated at a spouse they no longer love, and getting fatter. Yeah, I know that some people have nice families and nice weekends and they're productive, etc. Heck, I love working out in my yard and I look forward to the weekend to do that.

Still, I suspect the reason we really look forward to the weekend is because most of us just can't stand our jobs. We won't do anything about it, mind you. We'll just continue to gripe, put in a half-baked effort, and cash the check. But we live lives of quiet desperation. Every once in a while someone snaps and there's a mass muder or something. While I don't condone that, somehow it doesn't make any less sense to me than the million little deaths that occur every day inside of people. Unfortunately, Thursday doesn't do anything to change that.

Random Thoughts - It's Raining in my Cranium

2008-06-02T10:57:00.000-07:00

So Cleveland has had Euclid Avenue torn up forever to work on what’s called the Euclid Corridor Project, which basically seems like a bus line from Public Square to University Circle. Regardless, it’ll be nice to have something new downtown and the brickwork they’re doing on the sidewalks really is nice. This morning I noticed that they put out some pretty cool looking stainless steel garbage can enclosures. The have designs cut out of them and are artsy and pretty nice looking. Of course, this being Cleveland, the other thing I noticed about them is that a bum was sitting on top of one of them. I know, bum isn’t politically correct but it’s funnier than “homeless person.” Besides, this kind of euphemistic language is part of why this country is in trouble. The guy is a bum. And he’s sitting on one of the nice new garbage can enclosures. Talk about a juxtaposition of where Cleveland is and where it wants to be…

Radio talks shows are much funnier when the hosts aren’t dating anyone. When Howard Stern got divorced, his show was funnier. It was more edgy and there was no more wasted time about he and his wife. Yeah, some of there fights were funny but in general the show was good when he was single. Then he started dating his girlfriend Beth and she just became too much a part of the show. Now the same thing is happening with Opie and Anthony. Anthony broke up with his long-time girlfriend a while back and it was kind of funny when they were talking about him being single and how he would find women, etc. Now he’s apparently dating Jill Nicolini, who has some sort of local fame in NYC for being a traffic girl on TV. She’s another in an endless string of halfway decent looking women who’ve posed for Playboy, dated a couple of celebrities, and deludes herself into thinking she’s successful for something other than her body. The problem is that their relationship is now a main storyline of the radio show and, honestly, it’s just not that interesting. I mean, Anthony is a millionaire radio show host. What’s so fascinating about him dating some C-list local New York bimbo? He can date a different woman who looks like her every weekend. This is just not interesting, or funny.

Speaking of women, is there a reason women cannot put on their makeup before they get in their cars in the morning? I don’t wear makeup but I do brush my teeth, shave, and fix my hair, such as it is, in the morning. I do all of these things before I start driving. Is it too much to ask for women to do the same? Not only is it unsafe but it just appears incredibly vain. And I don’t want to hear about how much women have to do in the morning if they have kids, etc. Having kids was a choice you made. Live with it. Get some help from your lazy-ass husband or get out of bed earlier. If it takes you 10 minutes to apply makeup in the car, then get up 10 minutes earlier and you’ll be all done. Better yet, skip the makeup and be who you are instead of putting on a phony mask every day.

I think the best microcosm for observing human behavior is the supermarket. I went shopping yesterday and the deli counter was great. I walked over to that area and put my cart out of the way, since it is usually busy there and I didn’t want it to take up a bunch of space. As I walk over to take my ticket, some guy with two kids pushes his cart right in front of me, right in front of the ticket machine, so he can grab a ticket. Nice. This guy looked to be about my age, maybe a little younger, wearing shorts and a ball cap and smiling and trying to make conversation with everyone around. Meanwhile, his two little hellions ran around the deli area with absolutely no hint of admonishment from Mr. Cool Dad. What an inconsiderate, oblivious, asshole.

Also at the deli, another guy got the person working the counter to give him a piece of Swiss cheese to eat. He rolls it up and starts shoving it into his fat gob and, Swiss cheese being somewhat dry and crumbly, crumbs of it are falling onto the loaves of bread below him. Then he starts talking to the deli person while still eating the cheese. An absolute pig. No wonder we Americans are so popular all over the world. At least I didn’t see a bunch of old people basically walking around and getting their entire day’s nutrition from the free samples being handed out. Jesus Christ, old people in a grocery store with free samples are like fucking seagulls at the beach if you have a box of French fries. I swear that I think they don’t eat the night before. Most people plan to eat out at Outback or TGI Fridays. I think these old people are like, “Herb, where do you want to go for lunch today, Acme or Giant Eagle?” In the words of the immortal John Wayne, “It’s gettin’ to be ri-goddamn-diculous.”

Anna Kournikova

2008-05-26T18:40:00.000-07:00

I have to say that judging by the photo at right, retirement from tennis agrees with Anna Kournikova. She looks better now than she did when she was playing and she was the best thing on the court then. She's not completely retired in that she does play some charity events but she doesn't play on the WTA tour anymore. I think that's too bad. Yes, she was very nice to look at but she was also a good tennis player. She was, and still is, excoriated in the press because she never won a singles title. Perhaps some of it was deserved because she got a lot of attention when she played. But is that her fault? She's pretty. Gee, I guess she's the first pretty woman to ever get on magazine covers because of her appearance.

I watch tennis when it's on, mainly the women's circuit. I've been watching tennis for a long time now. I like to play as well but I don't get to do it very often because I don't know anyone who plays. I'm no expert but I think a bit about the sport and I think Anna got a raw deal. Because she is so attractive, she got a lot of attention and made a lot of money. But it also put a lot of pressure on her because people felt she didn't really "earn" the money. The longer she went without winning a singles title, the more she became a joke in many people's eyes. She won doubles titles with Martina Hingis but that didn't matter. In singles, she was for a time a top ten player. Most people in the world have never been top ten in anything. You have to have some kind of talent to be that highly ranked in an individual sport like tennis.

The point is that I miss Anna on the court. Yes, she was, and still is, very nice to look at. Buy I really enjoyed watching her play. For the same reasons, I miss Martina Hingis and Steffi Graf and Monica Seles. With Justine Henin just announcing her retirement, there aren't that many women on the tour I look forward to watching. Sharapova is my current favorite though people also assume it's because of how she looks. Truth is that she is like an assassin on the tennis court and I love to watch that. Aside from her, there are a few up and comers to watch but overall the game doesn't seem to have too many captivating personalities and I miss that. We need to Americans in tennis to cheer for or at least someone with some personality. Otherwise I'll be forced to simply keep up on the lastest news on Anna and her tool of a boyfriend, Enrique Iglesias.

The Meaning of (Marine) Life

2008-05-21T10:57:00.000-07:00

I've always admired my best friend, Boring Best. The reason is because ever since we were kids he loved film and photography. While all kids have things they are interested in, he remained passionate about this whole medium of visual storytelling. He took classes in TV production in high school, photography and film at our local college, and attended the prestigious Tisch film school at New York University. Today, he works in this industry. He's added other skills, particularly writing, to his resume, but he continues to work in the area of telling stories with language and film. While much of what he has to do would be considered "industrial" work, he strives to bring something dramatic to the projects he's involved with.

The reason I admire that is because I've never had that one driving passion in my life. I've dabbled in a lot of different things. To a certain extent, I like that I've been a dilettante because I feel it's made me pretty well-rounded. I know a little bit about a lot of things.

Recently, however, I've been increasingly uneasy. The things I've most enjoyed doing in life have been various hobbies I've jumped in and out of over my life. Unfortunately, I've never really been that passionate about the things I've had to do for the majority of my waking hours, namely, my careers. I suppose you could argue that being a psychologist can be an important profession that makes a difference. While I enjoyed working with many of my clients, I don't know that I ever felt a real passion for the work. Some of my colleagues just loved being psychologists. I think some just liked being called "Doctor" but some really loved the whole idea of the job. I think I cared and I tried to help the people I saw but I never really got a lot of personal satisfaction out of it.

When I started my own company, I liked the entrepreneurial aspect of it. It was challenging to go into something with no customers, no money, and no security and try to build it. I was proud of what we accomplished but I still really didn't care all that much for the work. Now I work at one of the largest lawfirms in the country. It's a comfortable job that pays well and I like the people I work with. But again, I still find the work to a large extent, meaningless. I suppose this is an affliction of middle age but I really feel that as a reasonably bright person I should be putting whatever meager talents I have toward something more useful and more satisfying.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about marine life. I love the ocean. I love everything about the water and marine life. I particularly love sharks and cephalopods like the Giant Pacific Octopus pictured on this page. Increasingly, I think I need to do something with respect to these animals. It may be on the conservation end or maybe some other aspect like behavioral study but I think I would really enjoy that. Of course, any job in those arenas probably wouldn't pay me as well but I think I need to do something else. I'm not a person who generally wastes time on regret but I think that if I never do anything different I might actually regret it.

More On Honesty

2008-05-20T07:24:00.000-07:00

When I wrote my last post about lying, a few people responded and though the general theme was about how lying has become endemic in our society, I knew I’d be in trouble when I said that I think men and women lie differently. Blueberry pointed out that she’s been through a situation where the man lied exactly the way I claim that women lie. I feel bad about this because it sounds like a terrible situation and because I’m just tired of lying in general and every time I hear someone relay their story about it, it makes me feel awful.

The reality is that, as a man, I can only appreciate my own perspective. While I have been far from a perfect boyfriend or husband, I have never cheated on anyone I’ve dated or been married to. After writing my last post and reading the comments, I thought about all the women I’ve been with, casually or otherwise, since high school. I could not think of one of them who didn’t cheat. They didn’t all cheat on me, at least not that I knew. Some of them cheated with me. Some of them simply told me about previous episodes of cheating. But I couldn’t think of one person I had been with who hadn’t cheated.

I guess this doesn’t necessarily make women different from men. It feels that way to me because I’ve never cheated on someone I was dating. In addition, when talking with guys, the reasons I hear for cheating are different than those I hear from women. Again, I guess that doesn’t mean one is better than the other but I do think they are different.

My point really is that I’m tired of the dishonesty in the world. Not just in relationships but all over. It’s wearing me out. I don’t think that when you meet someone you should have to spend a significant amount of energy wondering what their angle is. I think you should be able to trust the person you’re with and not have to always wonder what it is you don’t know. What I don’t like about the current world of distrust is that it changes people. Since every woman I’ve ever known has cheated, it’s hard for me to believe that any woman would be faithful. I know that’s unfair but it’s reality. And it makes me less trusting of anyone I meet and that also is not fair since, ideally, the person deserves my trust until proven otherwise.

But sometimes you feel like a sap living that way. It’s almost as if people cheat preemptively. As if we just assume we’ll be cheated on so we rationalize cheating ourselves. I don’t agree with this stance. I really think that if you expect honesty, you have to be honest. You can’t say, “Well, I don’t think my husband is telling me the truth so that’s why I slept with the guy from work.” I think each of us has to uphold our own moral code, regardless of what our partners do. That’s their decision and ultimately we cannot control them. We can, however, control ourselves and live up to the standards we’d like to see in others. Are they going to fail us? Probably. Given my experience, I think we’re likely to encounter more liars than truth tellers. But ultimately I think it’s about me and not them. If someone is dishonest, I can either have them be part of my life or not. I can’t change them. But what I don’t want is to become a liar myself.

I know. This is naïve. It may also come off sounding superior and that’s not intentional. I’m not a great person. I’ve done things in my life I’m both ashamed of and for which I’m sincerely apologetic. But I’m trying to be a better person. I’m always trying to be a better person. I’m trying not to give into the temptation of being mean-spirited or uncaring as a result of the fact that so many people I meet are that way. It is really hard. It’s really hard to be hurt. It’s really hard to be lied to and made to feel foolish. Still, in the end we’re born alone and we die alone. All I have is what is in my brain and the way that I’ve lived my life. I’m trying to live it better and I think as a result I’m going to become less and less tolerant of those who aren’t. If we want society to improve, we have to demand improvement of its individuals. While I can’t accomplish that, I can at least decide who is part of my life and what I expect from them.

Everybody Lies

2008-05-12T10:15:00.000-07:00

On the TV show House, a medical drama about a misanthropic genius diagnostician, the lead character, Greg House, repeatedly asserts that "Everybody lies." Boy, ain't it the truth? I've lied in my life but looking back on it, I can't recall lying about anything really huge. I probably have but I don't really remember it. But lately, I've been struck with just how easy and how frequently people lie.

One of the most common lies lately is about email. From the White House to Cleveland City Council, people keep lying about emails. They say they don't have emails, the emails never got backed up, the computers are to old to save emails, the emails got deleted but no one knows who did it, the emails got deleted and we know who did it but it was an accident, etc., etc.

Now, I work at one of the largest area lawfirms and my job is to assist our attorneys in managing electronic discovery. Given that experience, I can say a couple of things. Emails get saved somewhere. Whether it's on AOL's servers, an Exchange server at your office, or some other computer somewhere, emails are not instant messages. They get preserved. That being said, if emails are missing, particularly if only for a certain, conveniently relevant period of time, someone deleted them. Please stop insulting our intelligence by acting like this was just some kind of computer accident.

People also lie a ton about fidelity. Eliot Spitzer, Marc Dann, and every single woman I've ever known are all cheaters and liars who amazingly decide that it's time to come clean and turn over a new leaf at the exact moment when they finally get busted. Yes, I know a lot of men cheat too but men and women are different. When women get busted, they continue to omit certain details or minimize their activity, which is tantamount to continuing to lie.

Students lie on college applications. They take advanced placement courses so their grade point average gets inflated offering the illusion that they are somehow a great student when in reality, more college freshmen than ever are having to take remedial courses. Plagiarism is also rampant in all levels of academia.

Politicians lie about their voting records, being under fire, their knowledge of shenanigans of people in their inner circle, their actual beliefs about topics of interest, their intentions once they take office, and the source of money that got them there. Religious leaders lie about infidelities, child abuse, and embezzlement.

What does all this mean? I don't know really. I suppose people have always lied. I'm not sure if it's any different now but it does seem like there's very little penalty for it. In fact, it seems that sometimes people get rewarded for it. All I know is that it's made me a very cynical person. Between personal events in my life and this being a presidential election year, I just don't believe anyone anymore. I'd rather trust people and not think everyone has a motive in dealing with me but I can't afford to be that naive anymore. Everybody lies. It's just the way it is and you have to be especially wary when they finally profess to tell you the truth.

Evolution - Will People Ever Get It?

2008-05-01T12:43:00.000-07:00

Here we go again. Click on the following link to read about how various states are trying to enact laws that force teachers to offer critiques of evolution.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353767,00.html

Boy, these people just will not give up. First they tried to mandate that intelligent design should be taught along with evolution in science classes. Since that's failed, now they still want to try to attack evolution by requiring that at least some critique of it is offered. The folks pushing this agenda are doing their best to say it's not about creationism or intelligent design but it clearly is just another back door way of attacking the theory of evolution.

Look, I'm not against intelligent discussion of scientific theories. What really angers me about this is that fact that these moronic politicians who keep trying to shape science education clearly have no understanding of science. First and foremost, science is self-critiquing. Do these idiots think that evolution has never been challenged? They have zero understanding of the scientific method and yet they want to impose curriculum changes upon teachers. It's absolutely infuriating.

I'm sure none of these idiots would ever happen across my blog but if anyone who agrees with them does, please get it through your incredibly dense skulls that the reason evolution is called a "theory" by scientists is because in science you always keep the door cracked for the chance that you might be wrong. Evolution appears in science textbooks as the best explanation for the progression of life on this planet because it has stood up to repeated scrutiny and demonstrated predictability and replicable results. ANY viable scientific theory has already stood up to far more analysis and criticism than creationism or intelligent design. That's what differentiates science from faith or mere opinion.

When I read articles like this it really is no wonder to me that our kids are falling further and further behind the rest of the world. While they embrace technology and new knowledge, our society seems increasingly scared of scientific progress and our reaction is to cloak ourselves in superstition and mysticism. That is no way to continue to be a superpower. We attack intellectuals, poke fun at scientists, and elect buffoons to the highest office. Sounds a lot like the last days of the Roman Empire.

Miley Cyrus and the Schizophrenic American

2008-04-29T05:48:00.000-07:00

First of all, as a psychologist I have to apologize for misusing the label “schizophrenic” in the title of this post. In America, people often use that label to indicate someone whose beliefs or behaviors are inconsistent. The reality is that when we say people are behaving in schizophrenic manner, we often are actually implying multiple personality disorder rather than schizophrenia. But I digress…

So there’s a big flap with Miley Cyrus going on now because of her Vanity Fair photos, like the one with her dad, Billy Ray, shown above. Since Miley is 15 and, more importantly, a Disney tween role model, some see the photos of her looking sexy and coquettish as damaging to her clean image and, more importantly, her brand. The photos were taken by Anne Lebowitz, who is really a terrific portrait photographer.

I mention “more importantly” twice in the above paragraph because there’s really two issues going on here. The first is all about money. We can act like we care if teen stars are made up to look 21 and prostituted around for marketing purposes but we really don’t. We did it with Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and even JonBenet Ramsey if you want to take it back to first graders. We love youth in this country and we especially celebrate young girls. Older woman can look at this with disgust but they all try to look younger than they are and many spend oodles of money trying to look like they’re in their teens or 20s. Men can act like it’s inappropriate but they privately admit that they take a second or third look at teenage girls in the mall or driving past the high school.

No, I don’t think you can idolize youth and praise it for it’s energy and attractiveness and then get moralistic when it’s paraded in front of you. You can’t use it to sell everything from jeans to automobiles and then criticize some 15 year old when she takes photos she thinks are “beautiful” and “artsy” with one of the world’s leading photographers. Again, I think this is mainly about money. Disney and others are making an absolute fortune off of Miley Cyrus and they don’t want anything derailing the gravy train. Trust me, when has Hollywood or the music industry cared about using up some nice young girl and spitting her out when they’re done? They only care about her image to the extent that it makes money for them.

With respect to the photos themselves, most of Miley’s fans probably would have never seen them if the media didn’t make a big deal about it. It’s not like a lot of 10-13 year old girls read Vanity Fair. Sure they might see the pictures on the internet but I don’t think it would have changed their opinion of Miley Cyrus unless someone told them it should. From Miley’s perspective, I think it made sense to do these photos. She knows the tween group is pretty fickle and she isn’t going to be their favorite forever. In fact, she probably has at best another 2 years of being a teen sensation. After that, she’ll need something else to do or she’ll just fade away. So, maybe she’s slowly starting to explore her image. I can’t blame her for that. And working with a photographer like Anne Lebowitz is an honor.

That being said, I think the only disturbing picture in the lot is the one on this post. I think that Lebowitz could have taken a picture of a father and 15 year old daughter than looked a little less like boyfriend and girlfriend. In fact, I’m sure she did. She probably took a couple hundred photos but this is the one that got picked for the layout and it really is just a bit creepy. To have your 15 year old daughter wearing a bare midriff shirt, low rise pants, and her head practically in your lap while you hold her hand like a lover is a little unsettling. And is it just me or does Billy Ray look like the guy who played Flagg in the television adaptation of Stephen King's The Stand? Of course, I know Billy Ray is probably a good dad and that the whole thing was innocent fun for them. I’m sure he’s not interested in his daughter in anything other than a fatherly way. Now, Hannah Montana on the other hand…

Does Anyone Actually Like DJ's?

2008-04-28T07:49:00.000-07:00

Was out Saturday night with MBB and a local bar. Not a dance club mind you, just a regular bar. After about an hour or so of being there, a female DJ came in and set up shop. It seems increasingly commong for bars to have DJs on the weekend at a time when I would argue they are increasingly irrelevant. I understand having a DJ at a dance club. The idea is to get people dancing. The more they dance, the more they drink. The more girls dance, the more guys hang around to watch and the more they drink. You could argue that a DJ serves a reasonable purpose in a dance club. They take requests and, to a certain degree, should be good enough to gauge the tenor of the crowd and do what's needed to shape the atmosphere.

However, I simply can't understand the role of a DJ in a regular bar where people are generally sitting, drinking, and talking. Background music is okay and in most of today's bars they have satellite or internet radio feeds so they can get continuous music of a certain genre or eclectic mix. This seems perfectly reasonable. You get a great mix of music, no commercials, low cost, etc. It seems perfectly suited to a simply bar atmosphere.

To have a DJ at a place like this makes no sense to me. More aggravating is the fact that the work of a DJ in this situation seems mostly about affectation. There's a lot of posing and physical busy-work to imply that something requiring expertise is going on. First of all the DJ arrives with his/her platters of vinyl because, as any serious audiophile knows, vinyl is for purists (even if you are piping it through the bar's crappy PA system). They also all have this annoying habit of wearing headphones with one side resting above or behing their ear, ostensibly so they can hear requests or talk to the folks at the bar if need be. But I'm not sure why they need headphones at all. My guess is that they would say it's so they can fine tune the mix or hear the results of their little tricks like scratching the LP. But if they need headphones to hear this, then is it really even audible to the bar patrons? And if it is not noticeable to the supposed audience, then are these things done just for the personal amusement of the DJ?

It all just seems a little too self-important to me. On Saturday, the DJ was dancing behind the turntables. Apparently, she was quite moved by her selections, even if no one else in the bar seemed to notice. As MBB and I observed, with today's technology you could do everything she was doing using the shuffle mode on an iPod or creating a random mix on an external hard drive. Come in, plug in the iPod, and leave. There's just no need for a DJ anymore. And their affectations are annoying as hell.

I think the real need for DJs, especially in faux hipster areas like Tremont in Cleveland, or similar areas in other cities, is to give all these 20-somethings would like to think of themselves as creative something to do for a living. Otherwise, they'd be living with their parents. Areas like Tremont are full of people who call themselves "artists" for one reason or another, usually as a way to hang out, live a bohemian lifestyle, and make enough money to overpay for coffee. To each his own and if music is your life and you love listening to it and talking about it, that's great. But don't set up a couple of turntables in a bar and act all cool with yourself as if what you're doing takes some kind of special knowledge and you're really making or breaking the bar's success. Please. People are there to drink, talk, and flirt. A radio will suffice.

Cosmic Collision

2008-04-24T18:54:00.000-07:00

This picture is one of the newest images of the aftermath of the collision of two galaxies. Many galactic collisions have been photographed. This one is in Ursa Major about 500 million light years away. First of all, it is amazing to me that we can even see something 500 million light years away. The concept of looking back in time as you look into space also never ceases to amaze me. And while this was an incredibly violent event (500 million years ago), it is sublimely beautiful to observe from a safe distance. When I see these photos I again question why we so desperately need to believe in our various gods. The universe is so incredible and beautiful all by itself that, to me, having to impose some human-like will upon it actually diminishes its grandeur.

What In The World Is Going On?

2008-04-21T06:15:00.000-07:00

Every generation always thinks the next generation is worse. They look at kids and lament their lack of discipline, hairstyles, or loose morality. Teens in the 50's who raced cars and made out on hilltops were scandalous to their parents and grandparents. Of course it was pretty tame stuff compared to what goes on today with teens and the internet and cell phones. We hear about global wamring but then there are other scientists who say it's just a natural cycle and we don't really need to be worried. Our leaders tell us that the inflation, economic downturn, and social instability people are feeling right now can all be fixed and the the U.S. will remain the powerful world leader it has been all my life.

I'm not so sure. As I look around, I see things happening that I have never before seen in my 42 years on this planet. Twice this weekend I saw stories about people in Haiti eating "dirt cookies." For those who haven't heard, Haiti is in the middle of an incredible problem with food, mainly that inflation has priced food out of the reach of many of the citizens. So to stave off hunger, many people are making, selling, and eating dirt cookies. These are literally cookies made with salt, a bit of cheap vegatable shortening, and dirt. Yes, actual dirt from the ground. It is 2008 and people are eating dirt to try to survive. Haiti is a desperately poor country that's been poor as long as I can remember but in my entire life I've never heard that its people had to resort to eating dirt. As bad as poverty is in many African nations, I have not heard reports of people making cookies from dirt.

To me, this is deeply disturbing. The older I get, the more disturbed I am by these things. The world has changed significantly, mainly as a result of technology. The internet and broadband connections have enabled commerce in places where it would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. One of the main engines driving the economic boom in India is the availability of such technology that allows Indian companies to setup warehouses for technical support, medical billing, and large scale document indexing.

But while this has all been good, for a minority of people, it seems like much of the world's population is barely getting by. Unemployment routinely hovers at double-digits in Europe. The economic hardships in former Soviet countries have helped those people to turn their backs on democracy and embrace more nationalistic governments again. In the U.S., the middle class continues to lose ground and kids in college today for the first time are facing a future where they may be worse off financially than their parents. In Haiti, Egypt, and other nations, there are food riots going on. In Haiti, people are eating dirt.

Some of these things will change. America will emerge from the subprime mortgage mess. We'll even find a way out of Iraq. But many of the things that are happening in the world are things I have never seen before in my lifetime and I really believe that profound social and economic changes are taking place. The Pope was visiting the U.S. this past week. 60,000 people attended a mass he served in New York. People sold all sorts of bric-a-brac with the Pope's face on it. Catholics talked about how much his visit inspired them and reaffirmed their faith. Meanwhile, people in Haiti were eating dirt. Humans are so full of hollow praise for themselves but when anyone in the world is eating dirt we are failing as a species.

Harry Potter and the Attack of the Clones

2008-04-18T10:36:00.000-07:00

I find it fascinating the JK Rowling is suing a guy to prevent publication of his encyclopedia of Harry Potter. Of course the suit is not about money as she has wealth far beyond what she could ever spend. Rather, the suit is more about her intellectual property and that she feels this person is in some way usurping 17 years of her hard work, original thought, and creativity. While I’m not some Harry Potter fanatic, I have read all the books and found them to be pretty engaging. I sympathize with Ms. Rowling because if I would have spent as many years of my life developing something that became so successful, I’d probably resent people trying to make a quick buck off my hard work too.

That being said, this is just what happens. Look at all the ancillary material that’s been written and manufactured based on the work of Tolkien or even the universes of Star Trek and Star Wars. Sometimes people see an opportunity to make a quick buck without doing much original work and they try to take it. Sometimes they are legitimate, intense fans and feel like they are really adding to the source material with their contributions. Regardless, when something makes as much money as is as wildly popular as Harry Potter, people are going to try to make their own cash off of it.

Appreciation for Ms. Rowling’s efforts aside, her creation is hardly novel. The story of a young person coming of age and fighting evil with his good friends is probably as old as human storytelling. Just looking at recent history, compare Harry Potter (HP) to the Star Wars sagas (SW) that predated Ms. Rowling’s books by quite a long time:

HP: a young protagonist (Harry Potter) with special powers battling an evil lord
SW: a young protagonist (Luke Skywalker) with special powers battling an evil lord

HP: a male and female friend to help in the battle (Ron & Hermione)
SW: a male and female friend to help in the battle (Han & Leia)

HP: a wise old mentor (Dumbledore)
SW: a wise old mentor (Obi-Wan)

HP: significant loss of said mentor (Dumbledore)
SW: significant loss of said mentor (Obi-Wan)

HP: an arch-nemesis with the title of Lord (Voldemort)
SW: an arch-nemesis with the title of Lord (Vader)

HP: a collection of evil henchmen (the Deatheaters)
SW: a collection of evil henchmen (the Sith and Imperial Stormtroopers)

HP: a collection of odd creatures, some friendly some not (giants, house elves, basilisks, etc.)
SW: a collection of odd creatures, some friendly some not (wookies, ewoks, tusken raiders, etc.)

HP: an overarching force for both good and evil (good vs. black magic)
SW: an overarching force for both good and evil (the regular Force vs. the Dark Side)

Add to these things the similarities in story lines, neologisms, and the creation of unique, repeated locales and I think you see where I’m going. There’s few unique stories to be told and one could certainly argue that a younger JK Rowling watched the Star Wars movies with the same fascination many of us had and later drew upon these stories for her our vision. Maybe she never saw Star Wars. Regardless, the point is that while I think it is really low for someone to simply try to make money off the Harry Potter brand name, to a certain extent Harry Potter tapped into a well that was primed by many stories that came before it and those stories helped Ms. Rowling to become an incredibly wealthy woman. I think as long as someone is treating her material with respect, she has to understand that people may not want the story to end.

Defending Obama

2008-04-14T10:10:00.000-07:00

The political venom is getting spread around like crazy lately with all the candidates looking for any gaffe, or something that can be turned into a gaffe, from their fellow hopefuls. The last few days have been full of news about Obama's San Francisco speech during which he said this about folks he met in Pennslyvania:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,”

I don't think Obama envisioned the shit-storm these comments would generate. Now he's being described as an "elitist" by Clinton and McCain. Far be it for me to think that Obama needs defending. He's a big boy and he knows the game. I'm sure he'll take care of himself. He's already taken a shot at Hillary for her shot and a beer photo op. Of course, this is the same guy who was on camera bowling with some yokels.

The point is that all politicians lie. They are like Silly Putty. They are maleable and they pick up whatever they happen to touch. I don't blame them. This is the fault of the schizophrenic American public. We say we want honest politicians who are consistent in their beliefs. What we really mean is that we want them to think like us. The problem is that there is no "us." There are just a series of special interests, the general public included.

Take trade for example. Many blue collar folks blame NAFTA for the loss of their jobs and the poor economies of their home towns. While it's true that many factories have relocated and jobs have been lost, it's also true that jobs have been created by the trade agreement as well. How bad NAFTA is depends on the audience and that's the problem. When a candidate comes to Ohio or Pennsylvania, it's hard for him/her to talk about how great NAFTA is because people here blame it for job loss. If you support these trade agreements, you won't be winning these states. When that same candidate goes to another state, or talks to a group of business leaders, coming out against NAFTA may be suicide. So you need to get the votes of all these people but the people are not in agreement as to what is best. What do you do? You could pick a side and stay on it, thus being consistent but alienating voters. Or, you can do what politicians do best - never really pick a side and try to make all the people think you agree with them. This is what makes a good politician. The problem is that once in a while you're going to get busted.

When Obama was speaking in San Francisco, the audience was different than in PA. He didn't want to come of as anti-trade but he still wants to be a man of the people so he made the statments above. And Clinton and McCain have jumped all over him. Now, the elitist argument is just insane. There's no way I believe Obama is more of an elitist that Clinton. But that's not even the point. The point is that he's right.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am bitter. I'm bitter about a country that holds out the promise of an American dream but keeps dismantling the ladder while you're trying to climb it. I'm bitter that oil companies keep whining about why they have to hike the price of gasoline while making billions in record profits. I'm bitter about corporate CEOs making 400x the salary of employees even when their companies don't perform. I'm bitter about tax abatements being given to every company that moves into a city with the result that the city infrastructure and schools crumble because individual wage earners can't bear all the tax burden alone. I'm bitter that a bank like National City may go under or be bought out, potentially costing thousands of jobs and millions in shareholder revenue, while the bank president exits with millions in his pocket. I'm bitter that those of us who live below our means, save money, and pay our bills are seeing our investments destroyed by people and financial institutions that wanted what they should never have been able to have and were irresponsible. I'm bitter that more of my money, in the form of tax dollars, is going to go to bail out homeowners who never should have qualified for a loan while no one offers to lower my mortgage. I'm bitter that the government does absolutely nothing to confront big insurance and pharmaceutical companies about double digit increases in premiums and medication costs. I'm bitter that the prestige of the United States has faltered so greatly in the last 8 years. I'm bitter that our students routinely get their asses kicked by students from just about every other industrialized country while we sit on our thumbs trying to develop novel education plans and whine about paying teachers more. Here's a novel educational plan: make every kid take math and science every year they are in school and demand that they actually pass before moving them on. Stop the unneccesary grade inflation that goes on with so-called honors classes designed to make some kids look better than others because they were willing to write an extra term paper that they probably plaigarized off the internet. I'm bitter that more than 4,000 Americans and countless Iraquis have died in a useless endeavor. I'm bitter that car companies, 30 YEARS AFTER the Arab oil embargo, still try to act like 27mpg is great fuel economy. I'm bitter that we complain about kids not going into science careers while the president slashes funding for the NIH, NASA, and forces redactions/alterations of reports produced by the governments own scientists.

But mostly I'm bitter because, in my mind, the vision of America as this great country where people are free and equal and where everyone has a chance is nearly dead. Our leaders have let that vision die. We've installed a corporatocracy where you are either a have or a have not. And it is increasingly difficult to cross the chasm between the two. I'm bitter because it doesn't have to be this way. I'm bitter because humans could do better and we simply continue to choose not to.

I suspect a lot of people feel this way. I think Obama is right and while he's backpeddling a little, I wish he wouldn't. His comments about the people in PA are the most honest thing I've heard in this campaign.

The China Syndrome

2008-04-11T07:37:00.001-07:00

You know, China's starting to piss me off. And I don't feel comfortable saying that because all the reasons I have for being pissed off at them are things that the U.S. could rightly be accused of. I suppose that's one reason they make me angry. They've been very critical of the West for a long time and yet they are now doing many of the things they've criticized us for.

I read today that they are now the world leader in CO2 emissions. This was expected because of their population and economic growth. But it was expected 15 years from now. And they didn't just pass us by a little. They passed us by 8% with no slowdown in sight. If all the EU countries conform to the Kyoto protocols, Europe is expected to decrease CO2 emissions by less than 200 million tons annually. China is expected to pump 600 million tons or more into the atmosphere. So, why should EU countries even bother to hurt themselves economically trying to meet standards that don't matter as long as China thumbs its nose?

Again, the U.S. is the second leading CO2 emitter and we're not working that hard either. We didn't sign Kyoto and our industries fight even single step towards fuel economy and emission standards. But this is exactly my point. For years China has accused the West of not caring about global warming. They have, rightly, said they we built our economy while polluting the planet and we didn't give a damn about anyone else. America can't deny some of these charges. Still, during the industrial revolution and early 20th century, when most of America's infrastructure was built, no one knew anything about the potential effects of CO2 on the climate. While we certainly have to accept blame for what we have done, and continue to do, at least for a good period of time we didn't know any better.

This is not about the environment to me. As you can see from my last post, that ship has sailed. I think humans will continue to alter their environment and challenge evolution to keep up. This is about the fact that today we know better. We have more science. We have more alternatives. Yet China, who has never had a problem painting the U.S. as an evil empire, is rushing headlong into developing more coal-fired powerplants and producing harmful emissions of all kinds at unprecedented levels. That to me is inexcusable and abhorrent. While ignorance is not always an excuse, if you do something harmful without knowing it is harmful, you can at least be forgiven a bit. But to have all the facts at your fingertips and still pursue your own goals at the expense of the rest of the world is not even civilized.

China accuses us of being polluters. They've now surpassed us. They accuse us of being imperialist but they continue to maintain their hold over Tibet and persist in the buildup of their military. They consider us dogmatic but they prevent free speech, restrict internet usage, and deny many basic freedoms to their citizenry. My point is not the the U.S. is a perfect place. Rather, I simply think it's time that China stop criticizing anyone else in the world. They are now the leading offender on so many fronts that they no longer have credibility to comment on environmental, social, or moral issues. I'd like to see our leaders, and those in the rest of the world, start asserting this position.

I Don't Give A Crap About The Environment

2008-04-03T06:03:00.000-07:00

I've decided that I don't give a crap about the environment. You constantly hear people bickering about whether global warming is real and whether humans are causing it. Every time there's a good snowstorm here in Cleveland you also have the closet comedian come out and say that he just had to "shovel 8 inches of global warming off my driveway." What absolute assholes.

Look, there's no doubt the planet is warming up a bit. The Antarctic ice shelves are collapsing and glaciers are retreating all over the world. Anyone who says that no warming is going on is a moron.

Is this the work of humans or a natural cycle? Who cares? The end result is the same. And even if humans have nothing to do with this, shouldn't we all try to do a little better anyway? We should have more fuel efficient cars simply because it makes sense. Even if cars had nothing to do with global warming and we had an inexhaustable supply of fossil fuels, shouldn't we still try to make cars as efficient as possible? And shouldn't we try to make them cleaner? These things just seem like they make sense to me regardless of global warming or carbon footprints or any other media buzzwords.

I also think it makes sense to try to reduce waste but not because things aren't biodegradable. That's a bunch of hooey. Everything is biodegrable. It may take a millennium but trust me, plastic bags and bottles are not going to survive in the molten magma of the earth once landfills eventually get churned over. Computers, cell phones, water bottles, they will all eventually be broken down by natural earth processes. So we should reduce waste simply because it makes sense but I'm not worried about the environment.

The problem is that people think that we can somehow change the inevitable. At some point, given the normal cycles of this planet, oceans wil rise and wipe out many of our coastal cities. At some point, there will be another ice age that will wipe clean everything in the Northern half of the U.S. and the rest of the world. Whoever survives those things may be killed off by the next pandemic, inevitable asteroid impact or, ultimately, the expansion of our sun into a red giant. The fact is that the human race has a limited lifetime. We need to live smart. We need to live efficiently. Those things just make sense. But we don't need to become paranoid or obsessive about every bottle we throw away.

Eliot Spitzer

2008-03-27T10:34:00.000-07:00

So now Eliot Spitzer, former governor of New York, has apparently been linked to a second prostitution ring. My only question is, when did he find time to be governor? Seems like all he's been doing is fucking women who aren't his wife. I suppose that's really none of our business but it's hard to believe that anyone who's putting this kind of time and energy into getting laid is really focusing on his job. As is so often true, sex is simply the downfall of men.

Health Insurance Part 2

2008-03-07T05:52:00.000-08:00

Well, it's taken me a while to do this follow-up, mostly because I've been very swamped at work and I've spent a bunch of time comment on the bluegrass blog of Mando Mama. But, to me, this whole health care issue is important so I did want to get back to it.

John McCain favors continuing health care as is. He likes the private system we have now and says that he believes those who can pay for health care should pay for it. In other words, the whole "personal responsibility" mantra of the Republican party. Government shouldn't pay for health care for you if you can afford to pay for it yourself. Well, let's look at a couple of flaws in that argument.

First of all, most people who talk about universal health care with even a modicum of intelligence are not suggesting the government provide health care for free. At my previous job, I paid about $850 per month for health care for my wife and I. That's a little over $10,000 per year. Plus we still had small co-pays for office visits and meds. Now that I work for a larger company, health care is cheaper. I pay about $150 per month for an HSA plan but we are also responsible for the first $3,000 of any health care expenses. Last year all our health care cam out of our own pocket because we didn't come close to approaching the insurance kick-in. So now I'm obligated to pay about $5,000 a year before insurance helps me out. Now, if I'm going to pay $5,000 - $10,000 per year for health insurance anyway, then I say I'd rather pay that amount to the federal government as a tax increase, get a health ID card, and never have to worry about doctor bills, shopping for insurance, and only seeing certain providers again.

People say they don't want universal health care because the government would have to fund it through increased taxes. So what? What's the difference? So right now you pay 20% of you income to taxes and then another $5,000 - $10,000 to some insurance company. So why not pay 22% in taxes and no money to the insurance companies? In the end, what's the difference? And if you want efficiency, having one "company" in the form of the government be the insurance provider is certainly more efficient than having hundreds of private insurers with multiple plans that you can't truly compare, with multiple non-standard rules for both patients and doctors. People say that the government is inefficient and wasteful and they point to Medicare and Medicaid fraud as examples. But ask any doctor about the wastefulness of having to employ teams of people to do their billing and comply with the myriad different forms, rules, and standards of private insurers. Yes, the government can be wasteful but this could be, if we wanted it to be, controlled to a better extent than it is today.

Frankly, I'm not saying universal health care is a panacea. There would be problems. There would be waste and administrative overhead. But people who don't think we have those problems in the current system are just plain ignorant of the facts. What we do know is that in the current system 40 million people don't have insurance. That's pretty pathetic for a country whose citizens are always going on and on about children being our future and the need to help those who can't help themselves. Is this just talk or do we believe it?

I also have to take issue with Senator McCain's notion that those who can afford health care should pay for it. Well, I do pay for it. But I also pay for the health care of many others. No one helps me pay for my own health care but money is still deducted from my paycheck on top of that to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. Well, if I'm just supposed to pay for my own health care, then I want to stop paying into those systems. If they're so inefficient, then why do I want my tax dollars going there? If Republicans are all about personal responsibility, shouldn't I get to decide where my money goes? Hmm...how about we pay no taxes and then just decide what government agencies we want to give our money to? That's personal responsibility.

I know that's an extreme example but it's hard for me to stomach a Senator whose health care is paid by me telling me that I need to also keep paying into a private system that I think is broke. I say we all pay into a big pool and we all share in the services. We do this for defense, the space program, interstate highways, and other federal services. We don't deny defense to people who can't pay for it. Why do we do this with health care?

Health Insurance Part 1

2008-02-12T10:15:00.000-08:00

Health insurance has been a big part of the presidential race thus far. Both the democratic hopefuls are touting some form of universal health care while John McCain seems a bit more for the status quo. Not surprisingly, Republicans love the current system. They like to talk about "personal responsibility" and believe that privatized health care equals choice, savings, and no "big government" bureaucracy. So, I'm going to take a look at these claims based on the available evidence and my own experience. We already know that this wonderful health care system of our places us about pretty low on the totem pole of industrialized nations so I don't think we can even hope to make an argument in favor of our current system based on quality.

So what about that "big bureaucracy?" Well, lest people forget, the government already provides health care via Medicare and Medicaid. Yes, the systems can be tough to navigate and yes, there is fraud and abuse. But the fact is that millions of people are covered by these systems, the checks get written, and most of these folks would not want to give up what they have to jump into the private pool. They already know how much that costs just for supplemental insurance.

But private insurance companies reduce all the bloated waste of the government, don't they? Well, a few years ago when I owned my own company, I shopped for health insurance. Because my employees were all teenagers or married women on their husbands' insurance, I offered a group plan through Anthem of Ohio (formerly Blue Cross). I was the only person who needed to be on the plan and it cost about $300 per month. Not terrible. When I got married and added my wife, the premium jumped to over $800 per month. Mind you, my wife is 14 years my junior so at the time she was about 23, perfectly healthy, and used less than $1000 a year in medical services. But, because she was a woman, especially in child-bearing years, the cost to add her was ridiculous. It didn't matter that we worked out regularly and had no intention of having children. Nope. The price was set by actuarial tables.

Okay, so private insurance isn't cheap but at least we don't have the bureaucracy of big government, right? Well, about two years into having my group plan, I began to notice a $25 per month surcharge on my bill labeled "Administrative Fee." I called and asked Anthem what this was for and was told that it is a fee imposed for preparing and sending out my bill. Apparently the $850 per month in premiums didn't cover that. Now, since I was the only person getting insurance at my company, the monthly mailing from Anthem included exactly 2 pieces of paper (2 copies of the bill) and a return envelope. So Anthem basically tried to tell me that it cost them $25 per month to send me 2 pieces of paper and an envelope. Last I checked, you could do this for $.41 (soon to be $.42). That gives them a profit on this "fee" of $24.59. Of course, they say the bill has to be prepared, as if some human is diligently sitting there calculating my bill every month with an abacus. Even if I grant them another buck a month for the computer program that automatically prints, folds, stuffs, and mails my bill every month, they are still making an extra $23.59 for absolutely nothing. Just because they can. Just because no one challenges them.

So, there's no bureaucracy in private health care, huh? Then why does it cost me nearly $300 a year extra in administrative fees. "Administrative" sounds like bureaucracy to me. And if you don't think there's bloated bureaucracy in private health care, tell that to someone who needs pre-approval for services. When I worked as a psychologist, we could often get only a few sessions at a time for our clients. Then we would have to call in for approval for further sessions. Often the person approving them was a nurse, ostensibly with psychiatric training, or a social worker. While there's nothing wrong with either profession, I have a Ph.D., and I actually saw the patient. While the insurance companies tout this system as eliminating waste, it is really just a way to deny service and keep costs down. Not costs for comsumers mind you, but costs to the insurance companies.

Again, do government administered programs have waste? Certainly. But I've seen nothing in my personal or professional experience to convince me that there isn't just as much waste in the private system. The reality is that it is a matter of semantics. In the goverment, it's called waste. In the private sector, it's called profits. We used to have a system where a customer (patient) went to a provider (doctor) and they simply had an exchange of services for fees. Because we thought doctors made too much money, we decided that it would make sense to put an enormous, for-profit company right in the middle. Somehow this was going to magically reduce costs. Hmm...does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? More on that in Part 2.

Brian Setzer

2008-02-09T12:59:00.000-08:00

I was going to write a different post but I got sidetracked watching Brian Setzer on You Tube. I noodle around on the guitar and while I personally suck at it, I do apprecaite people who are good. I have music from various people who I think are absolute guitar greats including Van Halen, Eric Johnson, Yngwie Malmsteen, Trevor Rabin, Tony MacAlpine, Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, Vinnie Moore, Stanley Jordan, and a bunch of others.

Taking nothing away from any of those guys, Brian setzer is without a doubt my favorite guitar player. He is technically amazing but I love that he plays his own style of music. While he easily has the skill to play more mainstream stuff that could be more commercially successful, he's always stayed true to the kind of music he loves. I suppose all the people listed above have done that but Brian Setzer is more underrated than any of those people. He's well-respected by other guitarists but most of the public doesn't know much about him, save for the short period when swing music made a comeback. Click the following link to watch Mr. Setzer all by himself playing "Sleepwalk" for an instructional DVD. His tone and right hand technique are just great. Simply amazing.

"Brian Setzer - Sleepwalk"

The McCain Train

2008-02-06T10:19:00.001-08:00

"Lazarus" McCain has come back from the dead and the consevative know-it-alls don't like it one bit. Late last Summer, everyone was throwing dirt on John McCain. He couldn't raise money and didn't have a shot at the White House. Fast forward to today, and he's the Republican front-runner after Giuliani realized that all of America is not New York City and Fred Thompson realized he's been dead for eight years. Of course, Mitt Romney's still trying to buy the White House but McCain looks like the potential nominee.

Now, it's unlikely I'll vote for any Republican candidate but what I'm really enjoying about McCain's surge is how it is infuriating to the far right conservatives like Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh. They've all been bashing McCain left and right, no pun intended. These morons are practically having seizures over the fact that McCain isn't "conservative enough."

Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, what these people are realizing is that their extreme views really don't represent the view of most Americans. These folks have made themselves plenty of money and become quasi-celebrities by acting as though they're just a bit smarter than everyone else in the room. They like to act as though they are the voice of reason and they get infuriating when they can't understand how someone can possibly disagree with their opinions.

Well, it looks like the majority of Americans disagree. Maybe McCain isn't conservative enough. And maybe that's why he's getting a lot of votes. In many ways, Americans can be pretty ignorant in their choice of candidates. I still think the overwhelming support of Obama by the black community is baffling given how little we know about the man. Still, I think one thing is clear. People in this country are sick of people who are extremists on either end of the spectrum. We're tired of people telling us what we should think and how we should behave. We want our politicians to work together and come up with real solutions for the country. We don't want people to make us feel bad for using plastic grocery bags or brainwashing us into thinking that some people don't deserve health care.

Typically when you hear people screaming the loudest, it is because they are losing power. The Limbaughs, Coulters, and Ingrahams of the world are upset because it has become apparent how out of touch they are with the desires of the mainstream citizenry. Good. I've had enough of people earning a fortune by stoking the flames of divisiveness in our country. McCain has demonstrated a willingness and ability to work with Democrats as well as Republicans to get things done. That doesn't mean he's always right but maybe that's the point (pun intended).

More Proof of the Stupid American

2008-01-27T12:56:00.001-08:00

You know, sometimes I think we just get what's coming to us. With the mortgage crisis going on, a lot of people have blamed greedy bankers and mortgage companies for the mess. While there's no doubt these entities share blame, what about the dumbass Americans who bought homes they couldn't afford? Everyone acts like the banks hypnotized these people. It's just simple math folks. You don't worry about how much money the bank qualifies you for; you look at what you can afford. Look at your net monthly income, minus all your other expenses, and see what kind of mortgage payment you can comfortably afford. By comfortably afford, I don't mean have just enough money to pay each month. I mean being able to pay the mortgage and still have plenty left over in case rates go up and some other emergency happens. This might mean you can't afford a house with a kitchen island or a glamour bathroom or walk-in closets. But it will mean that you'll still have a home if your interest goes up. Of course, you could have always been smart and got a fixed-rate mortgage but many people don't have enough income or down payment to qualify for those. If that's the case, you may have to wait to get a house until you can afford it. As one economist recently said, owning a home is not a right. But now all of us, even those of us who live within our means and try to do things right, are suffering in this economic meltdown resulting from a minority of greedy, dumb-ass Americans who refuse to deny themselves anything. Thanks. I really appreciate it.

Now, I hope you don't expect that things are going to get better with the presidential election. The Plain Dealer front page today described the results of the South Carolina democratic primary and the breakdown was interesting and, unfortunately, proof of more ignorance among voters. Barack Obama won the primary, pretty handily, over Hillary Clinton. But what was interesting was the racial breakdown among voters. The white vote was spread pretty evenly across the three top candidates, Obama and Clinton still doing best but very close to one another. Among black voters, 80% voted for Obama.

So what does it tell us that 80% of blacks voted for Obama while whites were evenly split? Well, it obviously tells us that whites and blacks see the candidates differently. Do blacks know something about Obama that the rest of us don't know? They must because they overwhelmingly feel that he is the best choice. To be fair, maybe the whites know something about Obama and that's why votes for him were suppressed in the white community. Still, given that whites were nearly evenly split, which seems predictable given that neither candidate has really emerged nationally as a front runner, you have to assume that this is just all about race and this is where Amercans are absolute idiots.

Now the fact is that Obama may very well be the best candidate for president. He certainly is a strong contender on the democratic side and seems to be gaining momentum. But nothing he's done to this point suggests that he should be getting 80% of anyone's vote. That's a huge margin folks. Usually the kind of margin someone only gets when their opponent has a major scandal or is a complete unknown. So my guess is that many blacks voted for him because he's black. And this is a piss-poor reason to vote for a candidate. Again, maybe he is the best person for the job. I may vote for him myself. I just don't think we've seen or heard enough to warrant that opinion yet. But I think many in the black community are simply excited to see a black person having a real shot at the White House and they'll vote for him solely for this reason. I wish those people would stay home on election day. If your analysis of a candidate's qualifications to lead the most powerful nation on earth comes down to skin color, gender, or religious affiliation then, in my mind, you are far too stupid to vote. Frankly, you're probably too stupid to operate a motor vehicle so you shouldn't be doing this either.

Again, in fairness, I have no doubt that some white voters in South Carolina, and the U.S. as a whole, will not vote for Obama specifically because he's black. This is patently ignorant as well and let it be understood that there are as many stupid white voters as there are stupid black voters. But this disparity in South Carolina just highlights the problem. In this age of telegenic candidates, it is increasingly obvious that most voters, with barely a rudimentary understanding if the issues facing the country, decide who to vote for based on the most superficial of qualiications. They like a candidate who is "just like me" and will represent "my issues." Well, take a look in the mirror. You're nothing special and your needs and wants are not necessarily what is good for the country or the world.

Frankly, as I've said before, I'm not impressed with any of the candidates. They are a bunch of wealthy egomaniacs who are long on sound bites and short on substance. But this is apparently what we want in America. We want a president we can have a beer with and we want a $300,000 dollar house on a $40,000 a year salary. We deserve everything we get.

Red Alert! Pretty White Girl Missing

2008-01-25T10:45:00.000-08:00

By now, you've all seen the story of Brianna Dennison, the college student who has gone missing from a friend's house in Reno, Nevada. If you haven't heard about it, you will. The 24 hour coverage machine has got to be cranking up right about now. Greta Van Susteren and Nancy Grace are lubing up and lining up their list of "expert" has-beens and never-was's. You know, people like Mark Fuhrman who, last I knew, was pretty much an admitted racist who helped screw up the OJ trial but is now some kind of supercop with amazing criminal insights. Still, you'll be hearing a lot about the case. Not because there's anything particularly compelling about it. Oh, except for the fact that the missing girl happens to be young, white, and very attractive.

That's how you get people to pay attention if you're missing. Fat black woman? Not much hope of finding you. Male? Forget it. C'mon, no one's even looking for you. Elderly? Maybe, but that's only because people want to make sure their inheritance is safe. Nope, unless you're a pretty white girl no one really cares if you disappear. I suppose that a good thing if you want to disappear intentionally. I also suppose that there's some poetic justice to it since it's also hard to get a job as a female correspondent on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC unless you're also a pretty white girl. Okay, to be fair, they also have some pretty black girls on their networks. Light-skinned black girls but there are a few. Hey, I hope they find this girl and she's okay, though I'm pretty sure she's dead. I'm just saying that if I ever go missing, I want someone to put out a picture of a pretty white girl wearing my clothes. Maybe then I'll at least have a chacne of being found.

Another One Bites The Dust

2008-01-22T19:13:00.000-08:00

Geez, first Brad Renfro and now Heath Ledger. At this rate we might rid ourselves of quite a few celebrities this year. The final verdict isn't out on Heath but from the description of the scene it's either suicide or accidental overdose. Either way another stupidly tragic waste. Another guy, this time 28 years old, with everything to live for and yet not enough. There's really nothing else to say about these people. how many examples do there have to be? All I know is that this brief post is an open letter to all celebrities who just can't go on with their difficult existence. Please, if you're going to take your own life or live a ridiculously dangerous lifestyle, for my sake just put me in your will. Leave me your millions because, while I know it didn't make you happy, I'm pretty sure it could help me. Maybe you're just not very well balanced but I honestly think I could handle it. So leave this world with a clean conscience. Give the money to me. I'll make good use of it and then you can take yourself out of the game and leave this world for somewhere you no longer have to deal with the heartache of fame and fortune.

What An Asshole

2008-01-16T10:42:00.000-08:00

Okay, I had to do this for my buddy Boring Best. Brad Renfro died yesterday. What an absolute asshole. If you've never heard of Renfro, and you may not have, he was a full-time drug addict and sometime actor. Actually, he's been in a ton of movies people probably have heard of such as The Client, Ghostworld, and Telling Lies In America. Still, he was more famous for buying drugs from cops and trying to steal yachts than he was for his acting. That's why he's just another dead celebrity asshole.

This kid basically got plucked off the streets of Tennessee to star in The Client. At the time of his death, he was 25 years old. How many people wouldn't want to have that opportunity? This guy didn't even have pay any dues. Sure, he acted in plays in Tennessee as a teen but it's not like he was some classically trained actor. He was in the right place at the right time and had a gift dropped right in his lap. He hit the lottery. A cool career, lots of money, famous friends, tons of chicks, and no need to worry about retirement or rent or health insurance like the rest of us.

Now, I've never put myself out there to be an actor so I can't complain or bemoan people who do for their success. But I also don't have to feel an ounce of remorse or sadness when one of them pisses it all away. I know, there hasn't been an autopsy yet. Still, there are only a few causes of death for 25 year old drug abusers when they're not behind the wheel of a car. I know I shouldn't feel this way but I feel personally insulted when one of these spoiled, immature, moronic celebrities kills themselves. I feel insulted because there are many of us who don't have the courage or looks or personality to be successful at such a career. Those who do should feel lucky to be there as opposed to living the life that 95% of Americans trudge through every day. They shouldn't piss it away and when they do, I do not feel bad at all. In fact, when Boring told me about this last night, all I could do was laugh. Say goodnight to another celebrity imbecile.

Can We Ever Just Have Some Honesty?

2008-01-12T19:05:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's Plain Dealer had an article about a potential new breaktrough in stem cell research. I first saw this mentioned on the net but the PD had a follow-up. Apparently some researchers in Massachusetts have found a way to cultivate healthy embryonic stem cells from the embryos without destroying them. As most people know, because of government restrictions it has been difficult to develop new stem cell lines because using viable embryos is forbidden. Despite the fact that thousands of embryos are discarded as medical waste each year, conservative religious groups have decided that this is better than using them to potentially help actual living people. So, scientists have had to try to develop stem cells in other ways. While there have been some significant steps forward, there are still issues with some of the new methods. The research results reported in the PD yesterday are promising because it apparently allows the use of the best source of productive stem cells while not damaging the embryo itself. This would seem to be the ultimate good news. Scientists still get to develop new cell lines and folks who want to preserve every embryo get their wish.

But hold on. Not so fast. Story Landis, head of the NIH stem cell task force, says it's unlikely that the method could become widespread and truly solve the dilemma posed by the Bush administration restrictions. The reason is that even though the embryos appear to be undamaged by the procedure, the only way to know for sure would be to let some continue to develop into babies and, of course, such an experiment would be unethical. So we have a potentially promising development that may never be able to be used because the only test of its effectiveness that would satisfy people is impossible to ever complete.

Now, Ms. Landis raises a proper scientific point and I don't believe her opinion was in any way motivated by religious or political beliefs. Still, I think the whole stem cell debate is often filled with dishonesty. I believe there are a lot of people, probably many of the ones who pressured Bush to enact his policies, who simply don't want to see embryonic stem cell research continue. They think it is "playing God" or they are are just flat-out afraid of medical science that they don't understand. Whatever the reason, I think the truth is that they would prefer to ban the research. Of course, they can't say that because it makes them seem like they don't care about all the people who may someday be helped by stem cells. So they put so many restrictions on the research that it makes it difficult to proceed. And when some researchers finally develop a procedure that may satisfy everyone involved, it still isn't good enough because the confirmatory work can never been completed.

Again, I understand the ethical issues involved and I'm not saying we should raise some "test babies" to prove a theory. I'm merely saying that I believe some people will never be satisfied with anything scientists can demonstrate with respect to this issue because those people simply do not want it to proceed. They should just be honest about that instead of trying to erect false goals for scientists to meet. It reminds of the recent research study that was conducted to examine the power of prayer. The study failed to find any evidence for the effect of prayer on the variables studied. Of course, many religious people dismissed the study saying that God is not going to permit himself to be "tested" by us. So basically, when prayer seems to work it's because God was listening. When it doesn't, it because he refuses to be tested. Pretty convenient.

It's the same with medical research. You set up a bunch of conditions upon which particular research is contingent. If the researchers appear to meet the conditions, you merely change the rules of the game or invoke another condition that's impossible to meet. Effectively, you're simply preventing the work while acting like you're not. Again, I'd just respect people more if they just admitted that they think all embryonic stem cell research should be banned forever. I might disagree but I'd at least respect that. I don't really see a way that we'll ever be able to harvest stem cells from an embryo and definitively prove that the embryo was not harmed in any way. How could any scientist ever make such a claim without testing it? Still, to me, the argument is just another smokescreen. No one ever suggested that we harvest stem cells from embryos that were slated to be implanted in women. The idea was always to take them from embryos that would otherwise be discarded. If that's the case, then does the proof even matter? I suppose that gets back to the initial debate about "potential life" and that's simply another insoluble problem. As long as every embryo destined for the garbage can is viewed as a "baby", there will always be heated disagreement on the use of these cells. I know I'm out of step with the beliefs of many of my fellow Americans but issues like this one always serve to remind me just how off the pace I am.

Golden Dopes

2008-01-08T09:53:00.000-08:00

The best news I've heard lately was when I read today that the Golden Globe Awards were being canceled due to the writer's strike in Hollywood. The striking writers have succeeded in doing what common sense and decency could not. I'd love to see all the award shows canceled. I don't begrudge famous actors for making millions while performing a basically worthless service. If that's what the going rate is, fine. It's supply and demand. LeBron James gets millions because not many people can do what he does. While I don't personally believe that acting takes that level of skill, there are still only a few stars that can pretty much guarantee a solid movie opening. Based on the supply and demand, these actors command a lot of money. It may be silly but it's not the actors' fault and I don't blame them.

What galls me about the award shows is that many of these people, especially A-listers and even B and C-listers, make a pretty damn good living doing what they do. Somewhere, deep inside what is left of their rational minds, they know that the money they make is insane when compared to their relative contribution to society. Still, it isn't enough to just quietly collect the check and leave. No, we have to have awards so the "stars" can pat themselves on the back even more. It's not enough to make millions doing something unimportant, we have to be celebrated for it too! And several times a year!

The president of the Foreign Press Association, who sponsors the Golden Globes, had this to say:

"We are all very disappointed that our traditional awards ceremony will not take place this year and that millions of viewers worldwide will be deprived of seeing many of their favorite stars celebrating 2007's outstanding achievements in motion pictures and television."

Wow. There are a bunch of things wrong with that statement. If anyone in the world feels "deprived" by not getting to watch celebrities grab-assing, he really needs to rethink his priorities. And what exactly are the "outstanding achievements?" Saying that someone has made outstanding achievements in motion picture and television is like me saying that I'm a virtuoso of the grilled cheese sandwich (which I am, by the way). I think it is unlikely that anything is "achieved" in motion picture and television, except perhaps some poignant documentaries. And precious little of what is achieved is "outstanding."

This is exactly the kind of ass-kissing that makes me hate awards shows, celebrities, and everything that goes along with it. The worst is that the industry spawns its own quasi-celebrities like Mary Hart who have simply made a living talking about other celebrities. The whole self-obsessed Hollywood culture is simply nauseating. Good riddance to the Golden Globes, at least for this year. Now if we could get all the other award shows, including those in music, to follow suit, we'd be in great shape.

Why Can't I live In Iowa?

2008-01-03T17:11:00.000-08:00

Man, I wish I lived in Iowa today. There's probably nothing like the unbridled passion of being the first presidential caucus state. I think it's great that Iowa maintains its self-appointed status as "important because we're first." What does it matter if the turnout for the Repblican party in the entire state will likely be less than the population of my home suburb?

Every successive presidential race seems to devolve into a more despicable spectacle than the last. Honestly, is anyone excited about ANY of the current candidates? Not one of these people is someone I would ideally want representing me around the world and representing the best that the U.S. has to offer. Perhaps presidential candidates in my youth were no more intelligent or qualified but at least they seemed a bit more respectful and dignified. That probably isn't the case but rather an artifact of a less intrusive media. As everyone knows, JFK was quite the bed-hopper as president. He had a lot more extramarital sex than Clinton ever did while in office but the media never reported it. Maybe this was respect for the office but I think it was also just a sign of the times. There was no 24 hr new media fighting for ratings back then. You had the three major networks and they had a half hour of evening news in which to cover all the important stuff.

So maybe presidential timber was not much better stock back then but I still prefer those days. I don't want to know about the sexual escapades of presidents. I don't want to see candidates eating pork chops on a stick or deep fried twinkies. None of that phoney, folksy schmaltz matters to me. I would like to hear substantive discussions about what the candidates think. And they should have to answer tough questions. They shouldn't be able to simply say, "I pledge 100 million to education in the next 4 years" without someone asking where the money will come from, who will be doling it out, how they are going to keep track of it, and how they are going to measure the success of the expenditure. But this will never happen.

So, every four years we have to sit through useless debates where candidates spew forth non-answers. We have to endure endless commercials targeted at the fearful elderly, the uneducated masses, or the self-righteous youth. And in the end we'll elect someone because they are telegenic or well-spoken or quick with a quip or someone we'd like to have a beer with. But I think it's unlikely we'll elect someone who is qualified to lead the most powerful nation on Earth through a very challenging period in history. The reason is because such a person knows that he or she must be surrounded by more intelligent people who can actually accomplish the necessary goals. The problem with our usual crop of candidates is that they are are collection of multi-millionaires won't don't believe there is anyone more intelligent than they are. The ego it takes to run for president in today's America simply doesn't allow the people to seek out brilliant, independant thinkers for advice. Instead our leaders surround themselves with people who simply affirm their own grandiose self-image.

I have little hope that any of the current candidates can successfully address the most pressing issues our country faces (e.g., energy costs, health care, social security, globalization). I only hope that we elect someone who will at least display the poise and dignity that will help restore some of the respect others in the world have had for our nation. Our president shouldn't act like one of us. He or she should try to elevate us.

1.5 Inches

2007-12-29T13:48:00.000-08:00

One of the gifts my wife got me for Christmas is a "Get Fuzzy" desk calendar. She got me one last year as well and she knows that this is my favorite comic strip. As I opened the box, I realized that it contained a whole year in its pages. A year of my life. In 1.5 inches.

It made me realize that I've gone through the one she gave me last year. One page at a time, another year of my life, another 1.5 inches, gone. I can look back and say that I didn't really accomplish anything this past year. I'm not being humble. I really didn't accomplish anything. I continued working at my job, doing it at least passably. I saved some money, did some home improvements, read a lot of books. I've been weathering my separation from Angela and I think we're on the mend. All in all though, I didn't really accomplish anything. I probably won't accomplish anything this coming year either.

There are people who do things in life and there are people who talk about doing things. I've accomplished a few things in my life that I set out to but in general I fall into the latter category. Almost everyone I know does and I don't think that's a coincidence. I think people who actually accomplish the things they talk about hang around with other people who do the same and vice versa. Most people I know have good intentions and they care about the things they talk about doing. Honestly, they're just too scared or too lazy to do them. Again, I fall into both categories though I think maybe more on the lazy side than the scared side. Taking chances isn't easy. It means upsetting the little world you've contructed for yourself to keep safe and comfortable. It means risking failure, embrassment, humilitation, etc. For these reasons I don't really blame anyone for not following through on their dreams. Sometimes it's just easier to live a life getting by and not rocking the boat.

That being said, if I live another 40 years, I've only got 60 inches of calendar left. A stack of paper that's not even as tall as I am. It doesn't seem like much time. Still, as humans are want to do, I'll probably waste a good portion of it. I hope not. I really do have the right intentions. Nonetheless, it will take a significant effort for me to get off my ass, confront the self-pity we all overindulge in, and get something accomplished. All I can say for sure is that at this time next year, another 1.5 inches will be gone...

Dr. Don's Person of the Year

2007-12-23T13:58:00.000-08:00

It's that time again where Time puts out it's "person of the year" issue and we're bombarded by many other year end lists and best of's as well. Rather than fight the trend, I've decided to list my own person of the year though, as you can see from the photo, it's not a person. My "persons" of the year are the twin Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity.

A lot of people don't care much about space or its exploration but it is something that has always been important to me. I've followed this Mars expedition pretty closely and what thee two little machines have accomplished is pretty miraculous, and that's not a term I use loosely. Originally these two rovers were supposed to last 90 days. Mars is a harsh environment with bitterly cold evenings and powerful dust storms. It not the kind of environment you'd expect mechanical devices to withstand very well. And NASA didn't. Hence the reason the mission was expected to last 90 days.

However, a funny thing happened to these two robots. Four years later and they are still running. They've survived a monster dust storm that blanketed a good portion of the planet. Poor little Spirit has a broken wheel it's been dragging along for a year now. Some of their exploratory tools are worn out or damaged and their solar panels are now only working at less than 50% capacity. Still, these stubborn little machines march on.

Together, they've only covered about 12 total miles but they've exceeded the wildest expectations of mission specialists. With the Martian winter approaching, they've had to scrambe to a safe place to hide out and conserve energy. This is not as easy as it sounds. One of the rovers was stuck and only freed itself after some very precise efforts from folks on Earth. The challenge now is getting them both to safety in time.

The Plain Dealer today had a terrific article on the rovers in its A section. Everyone should read it. There's no doubt I'm anthropomorphizing but these two machines represent the spirit we like to believe all humans possess. They were sent on a suicide mission to a place that is incomprehensibly hostile and yet, with the help of their human handlers, they have demonstrated remarkable survivability. They continue to plug along, doing everything we ask of them, sacrificing their parts, but honestly providing inspiration to those of us paying attention.

Their mission has now been formally extended and in the end will cost approximately 1 billion dollars. That's a lot of money, no doubt, and this is where many people who don't care about space find their bone to pick. They proclaim that such money could be better spent on Earth. Maybe. I'm not so sure. This entire mission is costing less than one week of the war in Iraq. We've collected data about our nearest planet that we'll be analyzing for a long time and we've learned about adaping our own technology to the conditions. This is vitally important if we ever hope to explore other planets in person.

More importantly though, these little machines provide hope. They truly represent the best of what humans can accomplish. The data from the mission will be freely shared with scientists all over the world. People who think that exploring space is a waste have no appreciation for what a monumental achievement this mission has been. We marvel at human creations like the Taj Mahal or the Sistine Chapel but do we appreciate how absolutely amazing it was to send two golf cart-sized machines to another planet, have them land safely, and then actually power up and receive commands? Do we grasp the unbelieveble skill of the people who guide these machines with radio signals from billions of miles away? I think these little rovers do offer us hope, especially at this time of year when people are looking for it. Maybe the 1 billion dollar price tag is too much. Maybe NASA should have spent a few of those dollars on publicity for these two amazing machines. If people knew more about them, they'd be as inspired as I am.

Five Little Known Things

2007-12-18T16:57:00.000-08:00

Well, I was tagged by Mando Mama and apparently this means I'm now supposed to come up with five little known things about myself that I can share. Initially, I said I wouldn't do this because I don't really get into the whole chain mail type thing on the net. Then I realized that this would be somewhat rude since she did make the effort to tag me (pun intended).

The problem is that I'm not sure I can come up with 5 things. I have three I can think of and if I have to spend more than one minute coming up with two more, I'll just skip it and do three.

1. I'm a big fan of all living creatures. However, the sole exception to this rule is centipedes. They really make me nervous and I will kill them when confronted. Always from a safe distance if possible.

2. The sound of someone dragging roller luggage behind me is disconcerting. For some reason, it always sounds like they are speeding up and catching me. I then walk faster but it feels like they also start walking faster. It's especially unnerving if it is a woman in heels also using a roller bag.

3. I abhor mayonnaise, sour cream or anything with this texture or that creamy, sour taste. This by default includes any kind of creamy salad dressing, especially ranch, and any sort of chip dip. By extension, it also includes hummus though I realize this is a completely different animal. I still don't like the texture. Sour cream in frosting or baked goods is okay.

Hmmm, for 4 & 5 I got nothing.

Name A Star After Somebdy!

2007-12-13T09:08:00.000-08:00

Well, it's that time of year again. Christmas time. A time when we used to be inundated with Ronco commercials and Santa sledding in the snow on a Norelco razor. Now every year when I listen to the radio I know it's Christmas when Rocky Mosele comes on and implores me to "name a star after somebody."

The International Star Registry is a money printing operation that offers to sell you the right to name a star after anyone you want. They send you a parchment certificate, a star chart showing where your star is, and they note the name "in book form" in the U.S. copyright office. Not sure why they have to say "book form." What other form would they use? Old Edison-style recording cylinders?

Now, I think most everyone knows that the whole star naming thing is bogus. The only organization that can officially name a star is the International Astronomical Union. Therefore, when you "name a star after someone" you're basically just picking a point in the sky and assigning a name to it that no one will recognize except your own family or the person you named the star for. It doesn't matter that there's a copyrighted book that records the name. I could name all my farts and write them in a book and copyright it. Big deal. This means nothing to anyone.

Well, that's not entirely true. It does mean something to Rocky Mosele and the folks who own International Star Registry. At around $50 a pop, it's been estimated that they've "named" around one million stars since they founded their business. That's some pretty good jack for something that's basically fraudulent and meaningless.

Look, this basically irritates me because I think it's a scam. But I'm also man enough to admit that it irritates me that I didn't think of it first. I have ideas like this but I always give people too much credit for being smart enough to see through it. I think they're going to see me as a huckster and that my family and friends won't respect me anymore. I doubt Rocky has these same concerns. So, yes, I'm jealous that he had the guts to follow through on a scam I'd be ashamed to launch. He's rich and I'm not so I guess that shows you who is smarter.

Still, aside from the money, I just think this is a shitty gift. There's no thought involved and all the recipient gets is a crummy piece of paper and a star chart. Big deal. What do you do with that? I mean, do people actually frame these certificates and hang them on their walls? How many times do they really locate and gaze at their supposed star? Once, when they first get it? This is just a really shitty present. If someone just basically gave me a piece of paper for Christmas I'd say "Fuck you." And then I'd probably kick them in the ass for wasting $50. At least get me a gift card. Fuck Rocky Mosele.

And Merry Christmas.

Democracy - Part Two

2007-12-07T16:46:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure why it is that I've been thinking so much about our democracy lately. I think it is a confluence of events including all the election coverage, the war, and political happenings in a number of foreign countries. On this blog, I've taken shots at some of the absurdities of our country, our President, politicians, and even the war. I think there's a lot of room for criticism (cynicism?) but I wanted to make this post about what is right about America. The reason is that it seems like there's a lot of America-bashing lately, even by our allies.

Part of why America gets bashed is because we're on top, or have been, for quite some time, basically since World War II. Every country that has had it's turn on top has been assailed by the rest of the world. No one likes the king of the mountain and everyone wants to see the champion toppled. So it is with America. Some of the criticism is deserved. As a nation, were iconoclastic and often act imperiously toward the rest of the world (witness the Kyoto accord). We tend to act a bit superior and while other countries are secular and practice their faith in private, our political leaders wear their faith proudly on their sleeves, almost to the point of acting unjustly morally righteous in the eyes of many of the world's citizens. Individual American citizens can be loud, bossy, ignorant of history, and oblivious to other cultures. All these things are true. But to all those in the world who long to see America fall I ask, what's the alternative?

While the negatives mentioned above are true and even within our own borders we don't often live up to our own ideals, what country is a better alternative to take up the mantle of world leader? Well, there are only a few players. Any country who hopes to usurp the U.S. as world leader must be an economic and military powerhouse. That really leaves only Russia and China. If you toss out the military part, you could potentially include Japan and the Middle East (though no one country in the Middle East could effectively do it. There's no Persian empire anymore). Now, for all those people who hate the U.S., do you really think any of the 4 entities mentioned above would do a better job? Russia and China remain brutally totalitarian states. While I initially had some hope for Russia's President Putin, he has become just another in a long line of Russian dictators. He has made a power grab that the old Soviet leaders would be proud of. He jails opponents, quashes free speech, and has inflamed anti-American rhetoric.

The Chinese government is no doubt worse. There's little resembling a free press in China. Even the internet is carefully monitored and censored. Again, opposition to the government can be brutally eliminated. Many Middle-Eastern countries are guilty of similar behavior. In addition, women are second class citizens and there's little in the way of religious freedom.

Again, America is far from perfect. However, our citizens are generous and donate more money and time to other countries in need than practically anyone in the world. Our young men and women in the military are giving up their lives and limbs for the freedom of people in other countries while the rest of the world sits back and criticizes. Maybe the current war in Iraq was the wrong approach but Suddam Hussein was a vicious dictator, one we once supported, and the world is better off without him in place. Even if people disagree with this war, what about Darfur? Certainly the rest of the world recognizes that as a tragedy. But where is Russia? Where is China? Are they stepping in to work contructively to end the massacre there? No, instead everyone asks, "Why isn't the U.S. doing something about that?" The reality is that the Darfur crisis won't be solved until America gets involved, if we do. And this is true of every major world crisis. The rest of the world may poke fun at or despise America but when an emergency arises, everyone looks to us for help.

There's nothing wrong with that. Americans are generous and despite or faults we, like most people, are at our best in adverse times. But this country also embraces unparalled freedoms for its citizens. No web sites are blocked in my house. I can criticize the President with a megaphone only a few hundred yards from the White House. I can organize a group of citizens to support or oppose almost any cause with no fear of police or military reprisal unless I infringe upon the rights of my fellow citizens. No people in the world enjoy the freedoms we enjoy in this nation and that's why, warts and all, I believe it is important for us to remain a world leader. The alternatives are frightening.

The photo in this post is a black and white I took in DC at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Again, it was the most compelling memorial I've seen and while nearly 60 million people died in World War II compared to 58,000+ Americans in Vietnam, this memorial drives home the cost of our freedom more than any other. While I don't always agree with the direction of our politicians, I am very grateful to call this nation home.

Have They Really Found Bigfoot?

2007-12-02T16:34:00.000-08:00

The other day I was watching a show, I believe on the History Channel, about these people who are hunting for Bigfoot. The show seemed to focus on two main groups of people. One was a group trying to prove that the old movie footage we're all familiar with that allegedly shows Bigfoot walking away and looking at the camera is actually real. They contest that a human could never assume the posture of the creature in the film so it can't just be a person in a suit. The even used an athlete, supposedly because of his body control, in a motion capture suit to prove this.

The other group the show featured was a collection of women who were out hunting evidence of Bigfoot. The women are shown mounting motion sensitive cameras and placing bait (pile of apples) to lure the Bigfoots. I'm not sure why we assume they like apples but I guess it is just the lure of an easy meal.

Now, I've commented on this topic before in my previous blog but I think the comments bear repeating. When I was a tween and early teen, I was fascinated by all manner of extraordinary creatures. Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, aliens, ghosts, you name it and I read about it. I read all the Hans Holtzer books about ghosts. I read books about UFOs and alien abductions. I studied everything I could find about Bigfoot. I even visited a touring exhibition at my local mall that purported to have a Bigfoot-like creature frozen in ice. It later turned out to be a hoax. I was such a geek for this stuff that I mapped out some of the sightings and I was convinced that someday, as an adult, I'd find Bigfoot or Nessie. Then one day a curious thing happened. I grew up.

I would have loved for these stories to be true. How amazing would it be if some prehistoric animal survived in a Scottish lake? Wouldn't it be cool if some sort of missing link was living in the Pacific Northwest or if the dead really "survived" somehow and could interact with us as ghosts? And aliens would be the best of all. Actual creatures from another planet, certainly far more advanced than us. How fabulous would it be to actually be onboard their spaceship?

It's a shame in many ways that we have to grow up. Small children have this amazing capacity to believe in everything yet believe in nothing all at the same time. I think we all regret some of the loss of wonder and awe that we once had as children. I keep some of that via other interests that I've developed as an adult but I don't think it's ever quite the same. Still, the benefit of being an adult is that you learn to become a bit more discerning about what is reality and what is fantasy. Well, some adults do anyway.

When I watch these specials about people seeking Bigfoot(or aliens or ghosts), I wonder what their lives are like? If you spend all your time doing this, then you must be independently wealthy or have someone taking care of you. I suppose that ghost hunters can probably find innocent, naive people to pay them a few bucks to detect ghosts in their homes but I don't think there's much money in Bigfoot. So, if these people do this as a "job," I often wonder what their source of income is? And if they have regular, full-time jobs then they must do this as a hobby. And then I wonder if they have spouses and families and I think about how neglected those people must be. Even if you only go on one or two Bigfoot hunts a year, it probably chews up some of the family vacation money. And you know these people are always online chatting with other Bigfoot "researchers" and pouring over the latest vague plaster footprints. I think their spouses must be pretty lonely.

And I think that the hunters are lonely too. Lonely people who desperately want to be special. I think this is why sightings of all these various beings most often happen to average, everyday people. It's precisely because these people are average. But no one likes being average. We all want to be special. It's why some of us blog, or play a musical instrument, or drive a fancy car. In the end, maybe it's not harmful to have that desire. It probably fuels us to wake up every morning. Still, there's something disconcerting about adults spending so much time involved with fantasy. Like adults who spend all their free time in role playing games or online, it seems like you miss out on the chance to experience the real things about the world that can inspire awe or wonder.

I think I can say definitively that there's no Bigfoot. That's going out on a bit of a limb because there is a lot of pretty remote country in the U.S. Still, any species needs a breeding population to survive. A breeding population of something as big as Bigfoot would certainly have been found by now. But to date, despite all the misguided searches, we haven't found a Bigfoot skeleton, or clump of hair, or pile of poop, or evidence of a den or any sort of regular feeding pattern. There are probably lots of undiscovered animals in America but I would bet most are no larger than birds at this point. These Bigfoot hunters are an inquisitive and resourceful lot. It's too bad we can't get them to focus on something that actually exists. We might all gain from what they find and who knows? They might even end up feeling special.

Where Have All The Ribbons Gone?

2007-11-27T16:58:00.001-08:00

I've noticed a curious trend as of late. The ubiquitous ribbon magnets that adorned most cars over the past couple of years seem to have disappeared. You still see a few around but this looks like another fad that's run it's course. Is this because the war in Iraq has become so much less popular? This doesn't seem likely because this trend started soon after 9/11 with the invasion of Afghanistan which was, and still is to a large degree, supported by most people. So what explains the sudden, near extinction of magnetic car ribbons?

I don't know the answer but I suspect they have gone the way of "Baby on Board." You all remember those stupid, diamond-shaped, yellow warning signs that people plastered to the back windows of their cars and vans. It was a phenomenon that seemed to spring up overnight like mushrooms in the lawn. And then, one day, they were all gone. It's as if people were swept up in some mass delusion that they all suddenly woke from.

I think this is fairly close to the truth. The reality is that most people are sheep. They see someone with a dopey magnetic ribbon on their car and they think, "How clever. I want to support the troops too! And there's no better way to do it than with a magnet on my car." At some point, maybe when they see that their neighbor has taken the magnetic of his car, this person realizes how stupid this thing looks and how it really doesn't mean anything and he takes it off his car too.

My favorites are always the people who have like 40 of these things on the back of their car. They have one for the war, one for animals, one for breast cancer, one for Lance Armstrong, one for the preservation of peanut butter sandwiches, etc. These people must have felt like real tools taking all these things off their cars. And what does this mean? Do they not believe in this stuff anymore? Well, I for one am waiting for the next automobile fad. Though I'm not sure if anything can top the bullet hole stickers or the half baseballs that look like they're stuck in the window. Those are just too hilarious. Ah, that minimum wage humor.

Democracy

2007-11-24T11:22:00.000-08:00

You know, a lot of the postings in this blog tend toward the cynical. I think that's because I see a lot to be desired in the U.S. and with humans in general. However, recent events have made me think that we should be a bit more grateful and maybe even awe-inspired by the success of U.S. democracy. Yes, there are millions of uninsured in our country. There is an astonishing wealth gap and it's hard to trust politicians as far as you can throw them.

That being said, at least they leave when they're supposed to. In Russia it has become clear that President Putin wants no part of being a civilian again. Our one time friend and ally has been making an incredible power grab lately, one that has threatened to once again escalate tension between our nations. And it's not just him. Many of the former Soviet countries that elected "democratic" leaders now cannot get rid of them when they want to or when their terms are supposedly up. We're seeing this in Pakistan too.

It seems to me that other countries don't really get democracy and we should appreciate that, in our country, people do. I'm sure Bush doesn't want to stop being President but in 2009, he will. He'll walk away and do speaking engagements and build his library. He won't try to change the laws or enlist the help of the military to keep himself in power. Our senators and congresspeople also go relatively quietly. The may not want to leave office but if the public votes them out, they leave.

We take this for granted. With all that doesn't work well in our country, the core functions generally do work well. This is what other countries do not see. Democracy is more than staining your finger purple from voting. It means holding your leaders to the promise of shared power. And if they don't live up to that promise, then you may have to sacrifice your life or those you care about to make it so. That's happened in this country. Our democracy wasn't easy. It didn't happen in a couple of months or even years as citizens of other countries seem to expect it to. It took hard work, sacrifice, diligence, and even bloodshed. Sometimes I forget how well people here actually do follow the guiding priciples. It's not perfect by a long shot but it seems far better than most of the current alternatives.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2007-11-22T06:33:00.000-08:00

Just want to wish a Happy Thanksgiving to my 3 or 4 loyal readers. Without you this blog would be, well, about the same. Just kidding. I may not have a big fan base but I'd like to think my readers are a cut above the average blog commentators.

I'm actually at work today. This is a first for me, working on Thanksgiving. I didn't even have to do that when I worked at McDonald's. But, we have a big document review in our New York office (actually not that big but attorneys get all frantic about this stuff). Unfortunately for me, the contract reviewers are in Israel and not celebrating Thanksgiving. The task of training them falls to yours truly.

Hopefully I can at least make it to my family's by the start of dinner. Anyway, I hope everyone has a peaceful and enjoyable holiday.